Is this an example of applying the lessons learned from the article? If yes, congratulations!

Perhaps these things apply at different levels. The difference between speech and writing seems to be at the sentence level: sentences that are grammatically incorrect or unfinished, filler words, etc. But the thing that gets organized in your head when you imagine talking to someone is the overall structure of the article: what do you mention first, what next, which examples to use, which tangents to avoid.

Transcripts of speech may look horrible, but it doesn't take much work to polish them. The problem is when you write a grammatically perfect sentence, but then you don't know what to write next.

So it makes sense to worry about the overall structure first, and the details later.

On one level, yes. On another level, it is ironic that your answer has a certain religious feeling -- it feels like you are quoting some rationalist sacred text (that any other rationalist could quote just like you did) rather than providing your individual perspective.

(Note that if you say that your individual perspective just happens to be identical to the sacred text, because you consider it better than any spontaneous answer you could generate, that would also be ironic.)

There are some similarities between autism and ADHD that are probably worth exploring, because people can do similar things for different reasons, and then the same solutions may not apply.

For example, if I understand it correctly, ADHD makes it difficult to focus on important things unless they are also interesting. So you can help by e.g. introducing gamification. Autism makes it difficult to do anything when you are overwhelmed by stimuli. Gamification will probably only make it worse, because it is one extra stimulus.

Where a person with ADHD may benefit from a pill, an autist may benefit from a quiet work environment, etc.

More reasons:

2.b. The problem is not lack of legible evidence per se, but the fact that the other members of the group are too stupid to understand anything; from their perspective even quite obvious evidence is illegible.

7. If you attack them and fail, it will strengthen their position; and either the chance of failure or the bonus they would get is high enough to make the expected value of your attack negative.

For example, they may have prepared a narrative like "there is a conspiracy against our group that will soon try to divide us by bringing up unfounded accusations against people like me", so if your fail to convince the others, you will provide evidence for the narrative.

Do you have a specific plan, or is this just a call to signal virtue by doing costly unhelpful actions?

I think the pro-pregnancy-alcohol argument was that the small amount of alcohol won't hurt the fetus, not that it won't reach it.

I don't know much about Emily Oster, but it seems like she is a contrarian, most famous for her opinion that it is safe to drink [EDIT: small amounts of] alcohol during pregnancy. She claims that it is evidence-based, but has anyone actually verified that independently? (Seems like a task for Scott Alexander.)

To me it seems that some skepticism is deserved, considering that fetal alcohol syndrome exists. Also, research on adults suggests that even small amounts of alcohol are harmful, and it also seems weird that the small amounts of alcohol would be harmful for adults but harmless for fetuses.

Google excels at selling third-party ads. That's not the same as being able to create an interesting ad.

I am curious about your experience/opinion on this thing:

A computer can be a tool (editing or programming or learning), or a toy (playing games). I believe that it is better to learn using it as tool first, and as a toy later... and the social networks ideally as late as possible.

That's because if you don't know about the games, the editors are also lots of fun: a three years old child is excited about painting on the screen. But if you already know about the games, the editors are boring; it's like eating your cake first, and then being given broccoli.

Some people say that if your kids play Minecraft or Roblox, it will encourage them to start making their own levels. Sounds kinda plausible, but in my (very limited) experience, I didn't see such thing actually happen.

Once we organized a vacation together with some other families whose parents also work in IT. Each child had their own notebook there, so we made one big common computer room for kids. It was a lot of fun, the kids showed each other what they were doing. But my children were alternating between playing games, painting, and programming; children from the other families just kept playing Minecraft all the time.

So I recommend teaching your kids to use the computer as an editor before they join school (because afterwards they will take their lessons from their classmates). I'm curious if you agree or disagree.