Reader letters — lightly edited, with our responses.
We get hundreds of emails a week. We can’t respond to all of them, but we publish a sample. Where we’ve changed our mind, where we still disagree.
This week
Re: “The case against ranked-choice in primaries”
From J. Lacey, Burlington VT, 28 April 2025:
“I appreciate the argument, but the framing assumes the goal of primaries is to produce broadly-electable nominees. In a highly polarised electorate, that goal is itself contested. Reasonable people might prefer a primary system that produces an ideologically representative nominee even if they’re less broadly electable. The piece doesn’t engage with that view.”
Marcus Hall responds:
“Fair point and one I should have addressed more directly. The piece does assume the goal of primaries is broad electability; that’s a contested view. I’d still push back gently — I think a system that produces nominees who can’t win the general is a system that hands all general elections to the other party’s primary process, which doesn’t resolve the representation problem you’re raising. But I take your critique that I should have shown my work on that assumption.”
Re: “The decade that made AI training data into a battleground”
From R. Patel, Bangalore, 5 May 2025:
“The piece is US- and UK-centric. The fair-use doctrine you spend half the article on doesn’t exist in most jurisdictions. India, Brazil, and most of Europe don’t have it. The legal landscape for training-data sourcing is structurally different in those markets and that’s where most of the world lives. A follow-up?”
Sara Chen responds:
“Yes, you’re right and I’m planning a follow-up for July looking at how training-data lawsuits are playing out across the EU AI Act, India’s draft DPDP framework, and Brazil’s LGPD. I’d be interested in input from readers in those jurisdictions; if you’d be willing to chat off the record, my email is on the authors page.”
Earlier this month
Re: “Why every museum looks the same now”
From a museum director, anonymous, 6 April 2025:
“The piece blames curators for designs that mostly come from architects and donors. It’s an unfair framing. The economics of museum building force a sameness most curators fight against, not for.”
Naomi Bridges responds:
“I’ve thought about this letter for a week. You’re right that I conflated curators with architects + donor influence and that’s a real distinction the piece blurred. The structural critique still holds I think but the line of responsibility is more diffuse than I drew it. I’ll do a correction note in next week’s newsletter.”
Want to write in? letters@{{siteDomain}}. We publish about 1 in 30 letters and we always reply.
Got a strong reaction to a piece?
Send it to letters@{{siteDomain}}. The best letters get published with the writer’s permission. We always read; we sometimes change our minds.