This feels like a 2D space: Clarity = Complexity $\times$ Confusion.

How easy it is to understand something is a combination of whether the topic itself is complicated, as well as how muddled the explanation is.

Firstly, Sunset at Noon is one of my most-liked LW posts, & maybe my favorite, so thanks for writing it :)

I'm curious about your first point. What do you mean by "backslide"? That the effort you put into new skills is not worth the skill itself? And in which ways do you feel like you backslid from when you wrote Sunset, if that's not too personal a question?

The first link gives a 404 error for me.

If others are having the same problem I found this website which contains the text of the article.

Strong upvoted: This is great! This post's form as a transcript made it engaging to read, and I feel like I learned from reading it.

In particular, both "rewriting to catch the flow" and "practicing the ability to expand/collapse all the nodes in the mental workflow" are interesting ideas I'd like to try in the future.

In general, the whole post synthesizes some different ideas I've heard about writing in an informative way: (sort of a topic dump) Writing as talking, thinking about the audience, writing down ideas for future expansion, rewriting effectively, noticing (both when a sentence isn't "perfect" yet, and whether you just believe a sentence vs. knowing it's true), and practicing writing as a long term habit (and therefore short term improvement might not be significant).

I upvoted this post; it's really well written. The introduction made the conjecture less scary, which I appreciated. :)

I had vaguely heard about this conjecture before but never looked into it; after reading this post, I feel like I have a basic understanding.

The fact that there could be a correct proof but there aren't very many people qualified enough to actually verify it is funny to me. Is that normal? It seems like a bit of a problem, if people care about determining the correctness of this type of conjecture.