I am curious, what were other "visions" of this workshop that you generated in the pre-planning stage? 
And now that you have done the workshop, which part of the previous visions might you incorporate into later workshops? 

I hope the partial unveiling of a your user_id hash will not doom us all, somehow. 

I am not everyone else, but the reason I downvoted on the second axis is because: 

• I still don't really understand the avoidant/non-avoidant taxonomy. I am confused when avoidant is both "introverted... and prefer to be alone" while "avoidants... being disturbing to others" when Scott never intended to disturb Metz's life? And Scott doesn't owe anyone anything - avoidant or not. And the claim about Scott being low conscientious? Gwern being low conscientious? If it "varying from person to person" so much, is it even descriptive? 
• Making a claim of Gwern being avoidant, and Gwern said that Gwern is not. It might be the case that Gwern is lying. But that seems far stretched and not yet substantiated. But it seemed confusing enough that Gwern also couldn't tell how wide the concept applies.

There is some good stuff here! And i think it is accurate that some of these are controversial. But it also seems like a strange mix of good and “reverse-stupidity is not necessarily intelligence” ideas.

Directionally good but odd framing: It seems like great advice to offer to people that going straight for the goal (“software programming”) is a good way to approach a seemingly difficult problem. But one does not necessarily need to be mentored - this is only one of many ways. In fact, many programmers started and expanded their curiosity from typing something like ‘man systemctl’ into their shell.

It seems like, instead of asking the objective lvl question, asking a probing “What can you tell me about the drive to the conference?” And expanding from there might get you closer to desired result.

Witty, but I feel like that is not actually true?

It is likely that the rationality oft named is not the true name of the thing. Or “just be a perfect bayesian agent lol” is not practical. But that does actually mean anything legible is immediately false?

TLDR: This is an long metaphor to draw parallels between the Hanseatic League and the broader EA/LW communities. It is OK to not be a {corporation, societas, collegium, universitus} with common/top-down/bottom-up violence-monopolizing system. The price to implement a resolution system people would find satisfactory might be too high.

The fact it is hard to resolve conflict is because it is an integral part of the bargain, not an isolated bug. I personally don't want us to become a chimera with nine heads - a chimera for the sole purpose so we can utter that "we are a state". 

“the [Efficax Altruismus] is not a societas: (a company) for it knows neither a common ownership of goods nor shared ownership of the good, since in the [Efficax Altruismus] there is no joint ownership; nor is it a company formed for certain commercial transactions, since in the [Efficax Altruismus] each individual makes transactions for himself, and the profit and loss falls on each individual…

It is also not a collegium (a college)….since it is formed from separate [communities]. It is also not a universitas (a corporate body), because…for it is required that it has property, a common treasure, a common seal, a common syndicus and a recognised leader.

“the [Efficax Altruismus] is … a firm alliance of many cities, towns and communities for the purpose of ensuring that enterprises on water and on land have the desired and favourable success and that effective protection is provided against pirates and highwaymen, so that the merchants are not deprived of their goods and valuables by their raids.” - The Hanse in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, I think...

Oh my, I hope your sanity is holding. 

In a sort of morbid way, seems like things are working as intended - the "sharp" fella is winning social battles (invented or not) and keep exploiting the ever widening strategy space. Emboldened, he quickly gets to the "this is the line and no further" boundary of his current strategy. But instead of modifying it and keep his old strategy as a tool in his arsenal, he over-exploit it and disrupts the equilibrium so much he gets kicked out. 

It is very possible that it works - though I am somewhat doubtful and I don’t have a unit to test it.

A quick way for us to learn more would be to I guess duct tape the screen to the laptop at the angle/height your want - and work with it for a bit. Might be able to get more experimental data than our theory crafting.

Indeed! But these are side loads instead of directly above the hinges. 

Imagine this... you are a hinge. You are designed to take loads that roughly matches the motion of opening and closing of the lid + a bit of additional tolerance. But when someone mounts something heavy on the side of the laptop, you are mostly annoyed but OK with it because the side load will try to rip out the hinges out of their respective housing in different directions - the housing is usually plastic on cheaper computers, but perhaps aluminum on macs? 

The problem with have that much weight on the top of your laptop would be... that your hinges would want to close when you don't want them to - they not designed to be stable while holding onto that much weight + the leverage given to the new screen from being far away from the hinge assembly.