You summarized the reading really well. I found that I agreed with a lot of what you had to say. In particular when you explain the importance of knowledge of a specific time and place. I really enjoyed how you took Bylund's analogy and stretched it out to explain your points better. You wrote,

While we have widespread use of the internet today, it is still not feasible to share that much information with everyone who could make use of it. How could one express all the nuances of a shipping dock or the intricacies that go into logging and producing lumber in such an up-to-date manner to make the information useful to economists or entrepreneurs who are interested in these markets? In my opinion, the sheer amount of information that would be shared would inundate the reader to such an extent that any valuable information would be lost.

I think this hits an interesting perspective. Even with the internet, there is now too much information. If anything, the value of specific knowledge has become more important. Sure, the internet can teach us anything, but what can it specifically master? You need more information for knowledge, but casting a wide net can dilute your knowledge, while casting a tight net can lead to a rigid knowledge set. To me, this means there is a cyclical relationship between knowledge that is specific and knowledge that is general.

I think it is important to remember that neither is more important than the other. You need to be able to go into the intricacies without losing sight of the big picture in order to be an optimal entrepreneur. This is fundamentally impossible because, as you said, the sheer amount of information would inundate the reader and overload them. A nice standard to strive for but inherently unhuman.

This is the split in knowledge that Hayek writes about. There is now a greater need than ever to collect information and knowledge, and so the question of who gets it and why becomes increasingly important. You provide an opinion on this;

The knowledge of all of these factors cannot be centralized in one individual or group of individuals, as the nuances that impact each factor are too many to be effectively communicated in a timely manner.

I agree that, at a base level, knowledge should not be centralized in one individual. If we look back at the past, hardly anything good came from hoarding knowledge. The Catholic Church hoarded it for power, and the intellectuals for funding. We have constantly seen throughout history the problems that arise from too much centralization. This creates a vacuum, and instead of lifting all ships with a rising tide, it adds an extra level to some ships.

Academia itself is a bit of a joke in the modern sense. What we learn in class, we can learn on YouTube. What is being taught fundamentally in academia that could not be learned through practice? Outside of theory, I do not see much. I believe this educational gatekeeping is problematic for increasing and sharing knowledge across society as a whole. There are many career paths that would provide a great benefit to society by simply becoming on-the-job training. There are simply too many variables now for something as rigid as academia in the 20th century. What you teach could be outdated, or worse, irrelevant, by the time students graduate. Too many pieces factor into knowledge being well implemented.