Activity feed

  Zelalem Mekonnen revised idea #1896. The revision addresses idea #1884.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism. When it has received criticism and until the current criticism is resolved, that idea is seen as false. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism. When it has received criticism and until all outstanding criticism is resolved, that idea is seen as false. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1930.

Add hover effects to schemed buttons so there’s consistency with the existing hover effects for links.

#1930·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

Done as of ea37007.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1923. The revision addresses idea #1929.

Edwin says to either have hover effects for all clickable items or none of them. Buttons currently don’t have hover effects but links do.

I could remove hover effects from links. macOS links in System Settings don’t have a hover effect either. (They don’t even have a pointer cursor but IMO that’s going too far.)

Add hover effects to schemed buttons so there’s consistency with the existing hover effects for links.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1923.

Edwin says to either have hover effects for all clickable items or none of them. Buttons currently don’t have hover effects but links do.

I could remove hover effects from links. macOS links in System Settings don’t have a hover effect either. (They don’t even have a pointer cursor but IMO that’s going too far.)

#1923·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

I tried removing hover effects on links in dev and the user experience suffered as a result.

Especially for smaller links, like the hash links in idea headers, it’s nice getting that visual feedback that you are in fact hovering over the link and your click won’t miss it.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1907.

Done as of b423e18.

#1907·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

Reverted as of f8ed700.

  Dennis Hackethal commented on idea #1903.

The idea is not good if it has outstanding criticisms.

Don’t worry about which ideas are better than others. That’s a remnant of justificationism. Only go by whether an idea has outstanding criticisms.

#1903·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

cc @edwin-de-wit re ‘strong’ vs ‘weak’ criticism

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1897.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism. The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

#1897·Zelalem Mekonnen revised about 1 month ago

The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea.

To someone unfamiliar with Veritula, this may sound like you’re suggesting not to live according to an idea even after all its criticisms have been resolved.

I recommend changing it to ‘we wouldn't act in accordance with an idea that has outstanding criticisms.’

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1897.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism. The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved. Since the goal is to live a rational life, we wouldn't act in accordance with that idea. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if related, should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

#1897·Zelalem Mekonnen revised about 1 month ago

We accept that idea as true until it receives criticism.

‘until it is criticized’ would be more idiomatic, I think.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1920. The revision addresses idea #1921.

@edwin-de-wit says buttons should have a hover effect.

Edwin says to either have hover effects for all clickable items or none of them. Buttons currently don’t have hover effects but links do.

I could remove hover effects from links. macOS links in System Settings don’t have a hover effect either. (They don’t even have a pointer cursor but IMO that’s going too far.)

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1921.

I went back and forth on this. Native macOS buttons don’t have a hover effect and the human-interface guys at Apple are world class. I’m inclined to defer to their expertise. They know things I don’t.

#1921·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

Edwin says to be consistent. Either have hover effects for all clickable items or none of them.

I could remove hover effects from links. macOS links in System Settings don’t have a hover effect either. (They don’t even have a pointer cursor but IMO that’s going too far.)

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1920.

@edwin-de-wit says buttons should have a hover effect.

#1920·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

I went back and forth on this. Native macOS buttons don’t have a hover effect and the human-interface guys at Apple are world class. I’m inclined to defer to their expertise. They know things I don’t.

  Dennis Hackethal submitted criticism #1920.

@edwin-de-wit says buttons should have a hover effect.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1889.

Should I be showing the comment form by default on ideas#show?

To avoid scrolling past content, I could remove the autofocus on the textarea unless a certain query parameter is given.

#1889·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

Having implemented this, a problem has surfaced: when linking to an old version of an idea, the alert “You’re about to comment on an old version of this idea. Are you sure …” shows. That’s jarring if you didn’t want to comment but merely look at the idea.

  Edwin de Wit addressed criticism #1806.

Another problem with the term ‘statement’ is that not every statement encodes knowledge. Only some statements do.

For example, trivial or tautological statements aren’t knowledge, neither in the Popperian nor common sense of the word.

#1806·Dennis Hackethal revised about 2 months ago

It’s a valid criticism, but off-topic here. In both my book and video, I define these labels specifically as types of knowledge—not as trivial utterances or noise. So the label I’m looking for doesn’t need to directly address that concern, since I’ll make it clear upfront that all of them are knowledge types.

  Edwin de Wit revised idea #1915.

Thanks for the reminder! Yes, I agree it’s good to strive for some form of resolution. My current take is that I’m still satisfied with Intuitions and Drives as more accessible labels. But the shortcomings you’ve raised in Statement are severe, and I hope to find a better alternative. Unfortunately, I haven’t had much success on my own. I’ll share my current thoughts here — perhaps we can continue exploring alternatives for Statement if you think that’s worthwhile. If, however, you believe all three labels are a mistake and that it’s irrational for me to pursue them, I of course understand if you’d prefer not to continue the discussion.

Problems with Statement

1) By definition a statement is a verbalized expression, whereas explicit knowledge doesn’t need to be verbalized. It just needs to be verbalizable. Calling it a Statement is confusing, as people might think it must be verbalized, while my point is simply that it can be verbalized.

2) It also carries the figurative meaning of “making a statement” through non-verbal actions (e.g., wearing a certain outfit, defying a social norm), which causes confusion, as you pointed out in #1700.

3) You say that statements don’t necessarily need to contain knowledge (see #1806), but can also be trivial or tautological. While I agree, I don’t see this as a relevant criticism of my labels, since in my book and video I define them as types of knowledge — not as trivial utterances or noise.

Given these problems, I’ve tried to find a more suitable word. The only candidate I’ve found so far is Formulations. It conveys explicitness, but it doesn’t fully address problem 1), since it still carries the connotation of being expressed rather than merely expressible.

Curious to hear your thoughts, as always.

Thanks for the reminder! Yes, I agree it’s good to strive for some form of resolution. My current take is that I’m still satisfied with Intuitions and Drives as more accessible labels. But the shortcomings you’ve raised in Statement are severe, and I hope to find a better alternative. Unfortunately, I haven’t had much success on my own. I’ll share my current thoughts here — perhaps we can continue exploring alternatives for Statement if you think that’s worthwhile. If, however, you believe all three labels are a mistake and that it’s irrational for me to pursue them, I of course understand if you’d prefer not to continue the discussion.

Problems with Statement

1) By definition a statement is a verbalized expression, whereas explicit knowledge doesn’t need to be verbalized. It just needs to be verbalizable. Calling it a Statement is confusing, as people might think it must be verbalized, while my point is simply that it can be verbalized.

2) It also carries the figurative meaning of “making a statement” through non-verbal actions (e.g., wearing a certain outfit, defying a social norm), which causes confusion, as you pointed out in #1700.

3) You say that statements don’t necessarily need to contain knowledge (see #1806), but can also be trivial or tautological. While I agree, I don’t see this as a relevant criticism of my labels, since in my book and video I define them as types of knowledge — not as trivial utterances or noise. Therefore, the label I’m looking for doesn’t need to address this criticism, since I’ll clarify beforehand that all are types of knowledge.

Given these problems, I’ve tried to find a more suitable word. The only candidate I’ve found so far is Formulations. It conveys explicitness, but it doesn’t fully address problem 1), since it still carries the connotation of being expressed rather than merely expressible.

Curious to hear your thoughts, as always.

  Edwin de Wit commented on idea #1863.

In light of (at the time of writing) three outstanding criticisms of your new terminology (#1630), what do you plan to do, if anything?

Some ideas: if you disagree with the criticisms, we could discuss further; if you agree, we could come up with ways to correct the error, like (just spitballing here) revising your terminology going forward or posting disclaimers on previous publications.

Either way, it would be good to reach some sort of conclusion.

#1863·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month ago

Thanks for the reminder! Yes, I agree it’s good to strive for some form of resolution. My current take is that I’m still satisfied with Intuitions and Drives as more accessible labels. But the shortcomings you’ve raised in Statement are severe, and I hope to find a better alternative. Unfortunately, I haven’t had much success on my own. I’ll share my current thoughts here — perhaps we can continue exploring alternatives for Statement if you think that’s worthwhile. If, however, you believe all three labels are a mistake and that it’s irrational for me to pursue them, I of course understand if you’d prefer not to continue the discussion.

Problems with Statement

1) By definition a statement is a verbalized expression, whereas explicit knowledge doesn’t need to be verbalized. It just needs to be verbalizable. Calling it a Statement is confusing, as people might think it must be verbalized, while my point is simply that it can be verbalized.

2) It also carries the figurative meaning of “making a statement” through non-verbal actions (e.g., wearing a certain outfit, defying a social norm), which causes confusion, as you pointed out in #1700.

3) You say that statements don’t necessarily need to contain knowledge (see #1806), but can also be trivial or tautological. While I agree, I don’t see this as a relevant criticism of my labels, since in my book and video I define them as types of knowledge — not as trivial utterances or noise.

Given these problems, I’ve tried to find a more suitable word. The only candidate I’ve found so far is Formulations. It conveys explicitness, but it doesn’t fully address problem 1), since it still carries the connotation of being expressed rather than merely expressible.

Curious to hear your thoughts, as always.

  Edwin de Wit commented on criticism #1700.

My dictionary app says for ‘statement’ (bold emphasis mine):

the expression of an idea or opinion through something other than words: their humorous kitschiness makes a statement of serious wealth.

That’s the opposite of what you mean. Another reason not to introduce new terms.

#1700·Dennis Hackethal, 2 months ago

Interesting. Yes, you’re right that statement is also used figuratively—for example, in the phrase “making a statement”, where it means expressing something without words.

But the more literal definition is a clear expression in words:

Oxford English:

a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.

Nevertheless, I think your criticism is valid: statement could indeed be misinterpreted in different ways, depending on the context.

  Edwin de Wit revised criticism #1738 and unmarked it as a criticism. The revision addresses idea #1799.

I don’t take this personally, and I understand your intention isn’t to attack or belittle. To keep our exchange enjoyable and productive, I’ll make an effort to be more attentive to spelling, terminology, and precision. That said, I’m generally less concerned with exact spelling or perfect terminology, since my focus is usually on parsing the meaning or reasoning behind a theory or criticism. I try to be as charitable as possible in interpreting what someone is trying to say, focusing on the intended idea rather than the precise wording. Still, I recognize that clarity of wording may matter more to others—especially in discussions—so I’ll do my best to be more precise.

I don’t take this personally, and I understand your intention isn’t to attack or belittle. To keep our exchange enjoyable and productive, I’ll make an effort to be more attentive to spelling, terminology, and precision. That said, I’m generally less concerned with exact spelling or perfect terminology, since my focus is usually on parsing the meaning or reasoning behind a theory or criticism. I try to be as charitable as possible in interpreting what someone is trying to say, focusing on the intended idea rather than the precise wording. Still, I recognize that clarity of wording may matter more to others—especially in discussions—so I’ll do my best to be more precise.

  Edwin de Wit addressed criticism #1731.

Your new comment notwithstanding, I invite you to be more critical of your English. I’ve pointed out several issues already (which, to your credit, you did fix), and you’ve since made more mistakes (eg see #1729, and in a recent DM you wrote “criticizems”). A typo of that magnitude plausibly indicates deeper issues.

Again, I don’t mean to get too personal here – forgive me if that’s how it comes across.

#1731·Dennis Hackethal, 2 months ago

I think this is off-topic because my carelessness that caused my typos had no effect on my choice of new terminology. (Derived from your suggestion in #1808)

  Dennis Hackethal commented on idea #1909.

@dennis-hackethal Damn. I didn't know that. But if I understand it, 'few' means not many, and 'a few' means something like five or 6. I have a few close friends.

#1909·Zelalem Mekonnen revised about 1 month ago

Great, looks like you learned something new. You’ve found a bit of truth :)

  Zelalem Mekonnen revised idea #1908.

Damn. I didn't know that. But if I understand it, 'few' means not many, and 'a few' means something like five or 6. I have a few close friends.

@dennis-hackethal Damn. I didn't know that. But if I understand it, 'few' means not many, and 'a few' means something like five or 6. I have a few close friends.

  Zelalem Mekonnen commented on idea #1902.

You’ve since made the change to “a few changes” (as of #1894) but I think that change was premature.

Don’t make changes you don’t understand. Take questions literally and answer them.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/The-Difference-Between-Few-and-A-Few-

#1902·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

Damn. I didn't know that. But if I understand it, 'few' means not many, and 'a few' means something like five or 6. I have a few close friends.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1889.

Should I be showing the comment form by default on ideas#show?

To avoid scrolling past content, I could remove the autofocus on the textarea unless a certain query parameter is given.

#1889·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

Done as of b423e18.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1891. The revision addresses idea #1904.

I could turn the ‘Revise…’ button into an icon button that lives next to the collapse icon button. It could just have a pencil for an icon.

That way, the button wouldn’t need to be hidden anymore.

As of acb14e3, the revision button is an icon button that lives next to the collapse icon button.

Therefore, the button doesn’t need to be hidden anymore.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1891.

I could turn the ‘Revise…’ button into an icon button that lives next to the collapse icon button. It could just have a pencil for an icon.

That way, the button wouldn’t need to be hidden anymore.

#1891·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

Done as of acb14e3.