He writes in a conversational style to improve flow and to highlight his monologue: A. “How to explain” is an awkward phrasing—usually it would be “How do we explain it?” but he chooses to write like he’s talking.
B. “Well” is filler that would normally be removed, but he keeps it to echo the call and rapport of the conversation.
C. “Kind of” is a reasonable conversational approach.
3
Neither of these sentences really make his point, but they are good setups - and that way, you can appreciate it better. He's telling you a story, and good stories often have a good setup.
4
That's the point: we believe in physics as a rational choice, but cambodia mobile database we had no good reason to believe that before Newton's time. Myth: We must view past ideas and achievements in the light of them. We are not who we were in the past.
5
Use some sentences to add emphasis and slow the reader down.
“Risky” is both the last word in the body of the post and the first word in the title. That’s the point of the post: the biggest breakthroughs require taking the biggest risks.
He chooses not to explore the impact of risk. His posts are focused: he succinctly presents a novel idea and then leaves the reader to work out its implications.
Now, all of these options are what Paul considers, do they reflect his true intentions?