Activity Feed
#1869·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoThe red ‘Criticized’ label could be clickable and filter the displayed comments ‘in place’.
Not as simple as #4349.
#1867·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 months agoThe red ‘Criticized’ label could be a link leading to a filtered version of
ideas#show.
Not as simple as #4349.
#4274·Dennis HackethalOP, 13 days agoShould comments be sorted by controversial/uncontroversial first, date second?
More or less a duplicate of #4349.
#2962·Dennis HackethalOP revised 3 months agoThe red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many pending criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five pending criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify pending criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only pending criticisms.
Could simply sort comments by pending criticism first, creation date second. (Variation of #4274.)
#4126·Dennis HackethalOP revised 25 days agoFeature idea: pay people to criticize an idea.
You start a ‘bounty’ of an arbitrary amount (min. USD 5), which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
When starting a bounty, the user writes terms for the kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos or other unwanted criticisms.
Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.
To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period.
This has been implemented, sans page at /:username/bounties, which seems unnecessary.
Done.
Done, mostly as of 346fb25, then polished in 6dbf721, 5381525, 9f0f936, and 91e6f27.
#4128·Dennis HackethalOP, 25 days agoNeed ‘standing’ bounties: they don’t expire. I keep finding myself wanting a standing bounty for #3069 so I don’t have to re-run expiring bounties.
Done.
#4068·Benjamin DaviesOP, 25 days agoThose who advocate making most/all drugs illegal tend to think alcohol should remain legal, despite alcohol having many of the same problems as drugs.
Making alcohol illegal has been tried and was disastrous. Drugs are already illegal, which is arguably also disastrous. Those who advocate MAKING most drugs illegal but not alcohol are, I think, people who want to outlaw weed.
Drugs are currently illegal, and though drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all time high. Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough, to off-set drug user's ability to use legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) society.
Drugs are too broad of a category. Is widespread cocaine use the same as occasional magic mushrooms? The latter is suggested to have neuro-protective benefits.
#4131·Dennis Hackethal, 24 days agoGetting someone hooked on an addictive substance to get repeat business is predatory. It’s not an honest way to do business. Even if consuming drugs was legal, maybe the selling of drugs should still be illegal.
Subjectively applies to every good product that makes its purchasers want to buy more of it. Like good food, video games, comfortable chairs.
#4060·Benjamin DaviesOP, 25 days agoIf they violate rights they should be punished by the law, that applies regardless of if they take drugs or not.
If the drug + violation becomes a pattern, it's rational to outlaw it. (Assuming the outlawing works.)
E.g. alcohol is prohibited for drivers, even for drivers who are great drunk drivers.
In today's society they only have this ability to a limited degree, and would still have to deal with the drug users in public.
#4336·Dirk Meulenbelt, 1 day agoViolating the rights of other people depends on whatever their rights are. If we replace it with "desires", or use a libertarian way of saying "aggress on", then it's really just up to the people. I'd rather not live around drug users (depending on the drug), even if none of them physically assault me. I.e. "violation" is subjective, and ultimately decided by the polity that creates the laws.
Communities could exclude drug users.
#4058·Benjamin DaviesOP, 25 days agoAll drugs should be legal because people have a right to do what they want, as long as it isn’t violating the rights of others.
Violating the rights of other people depends on whatever their rights are. If we replace it with "desires", or use a libertarian way of saying "aggress on", then it's really just up to the people. I'd rather not live around drug users (depending on the drug), even if none of them physically assault me. I.e. "violation" is subjective, and ultimately decided by the polity that creates the laws.
Does it exist?
Knowledge can exist outside any mind. A book contains knowledge whether or not anyone reads it.