Incredibly beautiful even if it cannot fit under my pillow because I already sleep with SICP.
I think there's a version on this that is "adversarially try to generate exactly the right text to change people's minds, regardless of truth value", which I'd consider dishonest/anti-epistemic. But I think there's a perfectly reasonable approach here that is "make sure your writing actually engages with the worldview and reasoning of the people you're trying to engage with".
In background 2, it is fascinating how the reader may ”agree” that XYZ is not H20.
I would have expected the author to say that XYZ ”looks and behaves” like water before the escalation. I don’t know the academic term for this common pattern in English language and culture. Sometimes cartoon charachters debate whether a suspected bad guy who looks and behaves like a good guy is a good guy.
It might have been a biological lifeform, for example, that behaves like water either socially or physically.
One could build a game from this.
”Make it work” is the answer to more questions than many’d expect.
There is one rationalism, the rationalistisism, and it is an intellectual culture or a cultural period that spawned some ago years with Scott Alexander and the old LW. Rationalistisists are generally slackful and warm men hooked up on topics such as optimization, embedded agency, and ”other things.” That sort of stuff stimulates their minds even if they are not sure about what it really is, least not all the time, and they enjoy being themselves.
The rationalistisist pitfall is drowning into noise or shouting too loud, instead of keeping a balance and talking in closed forums only. No tweeting about minor things. No establishing new stuff for the masses.