Activity Feed
#3958·Benjamin Davies, 4 days agoMinor distractions, impulses, or shifts in attention repeatedly pull us away, forcing creativity to be spent again and again just to re-establish intentional direction.
How is using creativity to re-establish direction distinguished from self-coercing? I'm having trouble seeing the difference.
I could indeed have been clearer. The point isn’t that using creativity to re-establish direction is the distinguishing feature. The distinction is the method of conflict resolution.
In a non-coercive, rational resolution, you take the distraction or impulse seriously, examine its content, and form a theory of what problem it’s signaling. Then you conjecture candidate solutions and select one to try. A common solution is to acknowledge the distraction and explicitly schedule it for later, which removes the unfinished business feeling it creates in the moment. Direction returns because the conflict got resolved.
In self-coercion, the method is irrational and coercive: you don’t examine the content of the distraction at all. You steamroll it or swat it away. You may regain direction, but the underlying problem remains unresolved.
Both methods cost creativity, but the coercive one causes more downstream problems (maybe even suffering), which then requires further creative expenditure to be resolved in the future.
#3107·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoPreview links of discussions should show the name of the discussion being linked.
See eg https://x.com/agentofapollo/status/1991252721618547023
h/t @benjamin-davies
I implemented this a while back.
X caches link previews, so old previews remain the same. But new previews feature the discussion title, see eg https://www.opengraph.xyz/url/https%3A%2F%2Fveritula.com%2Fdiscussions%2Fcriticisms-of-zcash.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.
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 indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.
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.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize an idea.
You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.
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 indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.
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.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks, say, per pending criticism received by some deadline.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). The user also indicates a ceiling for the maximum amount they are willing to spend.
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 indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.
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. They may even award a bounty to problematic criticisms, at their discretion. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period. If doing so would exceed the ceiling, more recent criticisms do not get the bounty.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.
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 indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.
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.
#3912·Dennis HackethalOP, 11 days agoBeen trying a slight modification of bounties in prod for a couple of weeks or so. Working well so far.
@dirk-meulenbelt recently offered to chip in for a bounty I want to run. That got me thinking: multiple people should be able to fund bounties.
This is now a feature, see the ‘Funding’ section of a bounty.
I notice that when I amend a criticism I have made, I’m not able to see what I am criticising. It would be good if the edit screen showed the comment I am disagreeing with similar to how it does when I first go to write a criticism.
When I revise a criticism, I can’t see what it criticises. The edit screen should show the parent idea, similar to when I write a new criticism.
#2717·Dennis HackethalOP revised 3 months agoFeature to collapse all criticized ideas of a discussion? Useful for todo lists.
Archiving covers this.
#3980·Benjamin DaviesOP, 2 days agoDo you mean error correction within the company or at the level of the economy?
Both. But I might be wrong on this, because competition doesn't create error correction either, humans do.
Can shorting be a mechanism of error correction?
I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and evil as possible.
Can shorting be a mechanism of error correction?
I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and lazy as possible.
Is shorting be a mechanism of error correction?
I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and evil as possible.
Can shorting be a mechanism of error correction?
I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and evil as possible.
#3978·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 2 days agoThe sentiment of the sentence stands. Even with uncomputable functions, one shouldn't waste time in trying to solve them.
Then I suggest revising #3968 so that it still captures the sentiment without containing factual falsehoods.
There is overlap but I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. Many virtues overlap. The purpose of identifying them is to draw focus to different aspects of virtuous as such. Conscientiousness and thoroughness are quite similar, but I think different enough to merit mentioning both.
Excellence and pride are more similar IMO, but I think that it is fine to feature both.
There is overlap but I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. Many virtues overlap. The purpose of identifying them is to draw focus to different aspects of virtues as such. Conscientiousness and thoroughness are quite similar, but I think different enough to merit mentioning both.
Excellence and pride are more similar IMO, but I think that it is fine to feature both.
Bounties should be clear about what currency they are being paid out in.
#3970·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 3 days ago"Man simply invented God in order not to kill himself, that is the summary of universal history down to the moment."
Dostoevsky
Why haven't all atheists killed themselves?
#3966·Zelalem Mekonnen, 3 days agoIs shorting be a mechanism of error correction?
I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and evil as possible.
Being as evil as possible would include things like murdering people. I don't think businesses can get away with murdering people just because they don't have viable competitors.
If a business gets away with murdering people, it is usually for other reasons, like creating coverups or lobbying politicians.
#3966·Zelalem Mekonnen, 3 days agoIs shorting be a mechanism of error correction?
I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and evil as possible.
I think it is an error to short stocks in most situations.
It might be an error correcting mechanism at the level of the market, but that is not what I am talking about when I say I don't like shorting. This discussion is specifically about making money in the markets.
#3972·Dennis Hackethal, 2 days ago…often they are dealing with larger sums of money, which can make it harder to make higher returns…
Why is it harder to make higher returns for larger sums?
Dealing in larger sums means you have to make big trades to building meaningful positions. Moving large money in, around, and out of the market takes time and needs to be done carefully (so that the price doesn't get away from you). Small investors can build proportionally large positions much easier.
It is like piloting an oil tanker vs a speed boat.
#3972·Dennis Hackethal, 2 days ago…often they are dealing with larger sums of money, which can make it harder to make higher returns…
Why is it harder to make higher returns for larger sums?
Dealing with larger sums of money narrows your investable universe.
As an example, Berkshire Hathaway has an investable universe of only a few hundred companies. Everything else is too small to move the needle for them.
There are many great opportunities available only to smaller investors.
#3967·Zelalem Mekonnen, 3 days agoBecause these barriers exist, the company does not have to constantly reinvent its core model to survive.
This sentence makes an opposite point if it stopped at "does not have to constantly reinvent," meaning economic moat is slowing down error correction.
Do you mean error correction within the company or at the level of the economy?