Activity feed
Prospects for Próspera and other ZEDEs look dire and in a recent post […]
The alliteration threw me off a bit here. And if they’re dire they’re not really prospects. ‘Outlook’ might work better here.
lighter taxes and regulations
‘lower taxes and lighter regulations’ (I don’t think taxes can be ‘light’)
> made […] legallypossiblepossible↵ ↵ Just say ‘legalized’
#698 · Dennis Hackethal, 25 days agoHonduran Supreme Court declares ZEDEs unconstitutional, putting Próspera and other ZEDEs in jeopardy.
Not everyone knows what a “ZEDE” is. Is it an acronym? What does it stand for?
I now see that the newsletter links to an explanation further down:
ZEDEs are SEZs in Honduras.
But that’s too late. May have already lost readers at that point.
Not a lawyer but reproducing the entire letter from Próspera Zede is presumably a violation of their copyright.
One of the people running ‘Based Brief’ has requested criticism, specifically of their latest newsletter titled ‘Honduras rugpulls Próspera and other ZEDEs’. These criticisms aren’t meant to be exhaustive.
Honduran Supreme Court declares ZEDEs unconstitutional, putting Próspera and other ZEDEs in jeopardy.
Not everyone knows what a “ZEDE” is. Is it an acronym? What does it stand for?
> Your subconscious is like a computer […] She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have beenmore correctbetter if she had said the subconscious is a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is *automatic* like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.
#670 · Dennis Hackethal, 29 days agoYour subconscious is like a computer […]
She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have been more correct if she had said the subconscious is a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is automatic like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.
more correct
Something is either correct it isn’t. There is no “more” correct.
#641 · Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoI don’t think it’s “a lot like” doing science – the underlying logic is the same, science being just one particular instance of problem solving. This is then acknowledged in the subsequent sentence:
[...] Popper’s epistemology applies to all problem solving, not just to science.
So why mention science if you’re just going to generalize the restriction away regardless?
I just found this related Popper quote underscoring my point:
Truth is hard to come by. It needs both ingenuity in criticizing old theories, and ingenuity in the imaginative invention of new theories. This is so not only in the sciences, but in all fields.
> Your subconscious is like a computer […] She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have beenclearermore correct if she had said the subconscious is a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is *automatic* like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.
> Your subconscious is like a computer […] She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have been clearer if she had saidit’sthe subconscious is a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is *automatic* like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.
Fix separating punctuation
Ayn Rand writes: > % source: AynRand.Rand, *Philosophy: Who NeedsIt.*It*, chapter ‘Philosophy: Who NeedsIt.’↵ >It’↵ > % link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Objectivism/comments/1fnmccf/the_importance_of_conviction/ > Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.
#661 · Dennis Hackethal, 29 days agoAyn Rand writes:
Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.
[…] your subconscious is programmed by chance […]
This sounds as if chance was the programmer. The word ‘randomly’ might have been better. But that presumably still isn’t quite what she meant; I think she meant something like ‘haphazardly’, with no clear direction, by uncritical integration, ie osmosis, of ideas from the surrounding culture, as I believe she put it elsewhere.
#661 · Dennis Hackethal, 29 days agoAyn Rand writes:
Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.
[The] main function [of your subconscious] is the integration of your ideas.
Isn’t it the conscious mind that does the integrating, and then the subconscious stores the integrated ideas and executes them in applicable contexts?
#661 · Dennis Hackethal, 29 days agoAyn Rand writes:
Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.
[…] more complex a computer than men can build […]
It’s not clear to me that the basic building blocks of the subconscious (as opposed to its components at runtime) are necessarily all that complex. Why couldn’t they be simple?
#661 · Dennis Hackethal, 29 days agoAyn Rand writes:
Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.
[…] more complex a computer than men can build […]
Unclear what exactly “can” means here. More complex than we can build today? True. More complex than we could build in principle? Not true: we could build it, given the right knowledge.
#661 · Dennis Hackethal, 29 days agoAyn Rand writes:
Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.
Your subconscious is like a computer […]
She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have been clearer if she had said it’s a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is automatic like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.
Ayn Rand writes:
Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.
#628 · Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoI agree that Veritula deserves to scale to something huge.
Looking through the history of Wikipedia, I see that its core concept is that of “compiling the world's knowledge in a single location […]”. To be clear, I think the core concept of Veritula is to be a programmatic implementation of Popper’s rational discussion methodology; it then becomes a dictionary for ideas as a result. It’s also less about listing facts and more about listing ideas and their logical relationship (though criticisms do provide built-in fact-checking mechanisms). That said, with enough users, Veritula could become a place with a lot of knowledge.
The linked site traces some of the success of Wikipedia to volunteers: “The use of volunteers was integral in making and maintaining Wikipedia.” So early adopters such as yourself are crucial.
In addition, 9/11 apparently played a role in making Wikipedia famous:
The September 11 attacks spurred the appearance of breaking news stories on the homepage, as well as information boxes linking related articles. At the time, approximately 100 articles related to 9/11 had been created. After the September 11 attacks, a link to the Wikipedia article on the attacks appeared on Yahoo!'s home page, resulting in a spike in traffic.
Veritula could be a place where people break news stories and others can quickly fact-check and improve upon reports by revising them. An urgent story would draw a lot of users to the site, too.
Something like Wikipedia’s arbitration process could be interesting, too.
Something similar to Wikipedia’s page-protection feature to combat “edit warring” and “prevent vandalism” could address the issue of people posting criticisms in rapid succession to protect their pet ideas.
Your suggestion to look to Wikipedia for inspiration is spot on. Thanks.
To prevent edit warring and vandalism, maybe Veritula could have a reputation system similar to that of Stack Overflow, where you need to earn enough reputation before you can edit someone else’s post, say.
#647 · Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoSince your child has never done chemistry, he hasn’t yet been coerced about chemistry, so he should be fully rational about it and “easily” find a solution.
The implication here is that Deutsch thinks children are “fully rational” and could help even with the most difficult problems, which isn’t realistic, as is then stated explicitly.
I also recall Deutsch saying somewhere that there is no such thing as being “fully rational” anyway – that there is no ceiling to how rational one can be.
#647 · Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoSince your child has never done chemistry, he hasn’t yet been coerced about chemistry, so he should be fully rational about it and “easily” find a solution.
The implication here is that Deutsch thinks children are “fully rational” and could help even with the most difficult problems, which isn’t realistic, as is then stated explicitly.
Deutsch would know that children generally can’t help with a chemistry problem that requires a PhD, say, so this criticism can’t apply.
#647 · Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoSince your child has never done chemistry, he hasn’t yet been coerced about chemistry, so he should be fully rational about it and “easily” find a solution.
The implication here is that Deutsch thinks children are “fully rational” and could help even with the most difficult problems, which isn’t realistic, as is then stated explicitly.
Deutsch doesn’t claim that children are “fully rational”. His article is compatible with children being only partially rational but still able to solve problems as long as they’re not prevented from doing so. That sounds a lot more realistic.