Perhaps just [Shard theory alignment requires "magic"] to indicate that the word is used in a different way?
"Making the pie bigger" feels to me simply like there's more stuff (= wealth?) to choose from. If everything would cost money, that would mean you have more options to spend your money on, either because new things are invented or because existing things get cheaper so you have to spend less of your money on them.
(commenting just to say I upvoted for the "horribly confusing" line)
Agreed with the overall point in this post that there is value in reframing and rediscovery. However,
the tendency of LW bloggers to rediscover ideas of famous philosophers and pretend that they discovered it first
consists of two points and I think the second one also deserves some consideration.
I don't agree with the framing of pretense -- if you don't know about the earlier idea, you probably sincerely think you discovered it. But if such a "discovery" turns out to be a reframing after all, I think there is also a lot of value to be had in pointing this out: to integrate the idea in the common web of knowledge, to make clear to others that the idea exists in another form that they might already know or that might help to deepen their understanding.
So I would urge readers (or posters themselves) to please do keep pointing these correspondences out; in a spirit of helpfulness, of course, not as a 'gotcha'.
If there isn't, you could use a Nitter mirror & pull its RSS feed.
epistemic status: haven't read "The Sense of Style" but I did read "Clear and Simple as the Truth"
I generally agree with your points on the consequences of using classic style & I like this post for naming and explaining them. But I don't think classic style is bad in principle; rather, it's bad in certain contexts (like on the LessWrong forum, but not e.g. in fiction books or manuals), and I wish you had more explicitly stated those contexts in which you think it is bad.
I specifically do not agree with your beef with the word "rationalizing". For me (a non-native English speaker) it has a very clear meaning: it is related to "rational", but adding the suffix -izing indicates that it means to [try to make something rational], just like "commoditizing" means to [try to make something a commodity]. Whether or not you succeed in doing so is another question. These kinds of relationships between words make a lot of sense and I think that they generally disambiguate, not confuse.
Words like to/two/too are a different case which I have no strong opinions on.
Meta level answer: I like the spotlights. Don't always click on them but they also function as reminders that these topics exist & I can read more about them if I want to. Plus, I find them aesthetically pleasing on the page.
I like what you did there.
...but the fact that I (think that I) understand this post & can use this to my advantage — instead of going through the entire lengthy process of failing to convey wisdom on my own — means that you can unzip wisdom. At least a little. :)
There is an idea, or maybe an assumption, that I've seen mentioned in many Lesswrong posts. This is the idea that human life should be maximized: that one of our goals should be to create as many humans as possible. Or perhaps even: that preventing humans from being born is as bad as killing living humans.
I've seen this idea used to argue for a larger point, but I haven't yet seen arguments to justify the idea itself. I only have some directional notions:
Another fix for this specifically is to use Firefox onn Android, which does something like a suspend on inactive tabs. In my experience this completely fixes the "slow and laggy" aspect even with hundreds of suspended tabs.
Of course then you don't have a list of all your tabs, which is a useful resource you might want to create anyway.