Activity Feed
I noticed today that things in my shared spaces have better defined homes than the things in my private spaces, in the sense of #2840. Relationship maintenance may be a factor, it might be a trivial factor compared to what I describe in #2840.
I’ll test giving everything in my private spaces a dedicated home. From there it should be easier to understand how important ‘relationship maintenance’ is as a factor in my unconscious and inexplicit motivations for tidying up.
I noticed today that things in my shared spaces have better defined homes than the things in my private spaces, in the sense of #2840. ‘Relationship maintenance ‘may only be a trivial factor compared to what I describe in #2840.
I’ll test giving everything in my private spaces a dedicated home. From there it should be easier to understand how important ‘relationship maintenance’ is as a factor in my unconscious and inexplicit motivations for tidying up.
#2832·Benjamin DaviesOP, 11 days agoI’ve noticed that I have no problem keeping shared spaces tidy, which I suspect is driven by inexplicit ideas related to maintaining relationships, rather than understanding the underlying value in maintaining a tidy space.
I noticed today that things in my shared spaces have better defined homes than the things in my private spaces, in the sense of #2840. Relationship maintenance may be a factor, it might be a trivial factor compared to what I describe in #2840.
I’ll test giving everything in my private spaces a dedicated home. From there it should be easier to understand how important ‘relationship maintenance’ is as a factor in my unconscious and inexplicit motivations for tidying up.
#2972·Dennis HackethalOP, 7 days agoBug: as you cycle through a parent’s versions on ideas#show, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings.
Done as of 27123bd.
Bug: as you cycle through a parent’s versions on ideas#show, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings.
Bugs when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions:
- On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
- As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.
Bug when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions: on page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
#2965·Dennis HackethalOP revised 7 days agoBugs when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions:
- On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
- As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.
Shouldn’t have more than one criticism at a time.
Fix typos
That it and of itself isn’t a bug if the different revisions leading to the highlighted idea have different numbers of criticisms.
The issue also isn’t that there are other revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea.
The real issue is twofold:
- On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
- As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.
That in and of itself isn’t a bug if the different revisions leading to the highlighted idea have different numbers of criticisms.
The issue also isn’t that there are other revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea.
The real issue is twofold:
- On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
- As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.
Bug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same revision.
Bugs when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions:
- On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
- As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.
#1986·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoBug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same revision.
That it and of itself isn’t a bug if the different revisions leading to the highlighted idea have different numbers of criticisms.
The issue also isn’t that there are other revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea.
The real issue is twofold:
- On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
- As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.
Simplify language
The red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many outstanding criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five outstanding criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify outstanding criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only outstanding criticisms.
The 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.
The feature wasn’t quite polished. For example, arrow navigation through the dropdown menu was missing. And there were some bugs. But it’s polished now and the bugs should be fixed as of 4ced719.
#2959·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoWell, he did say “partly”, so that leaves room for personal responsibility.
It leaves room for something, but it’s not clear what.
#2958·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoI think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.
Should take personal responsibility and not blame the tool.
Well, he did say “partly”, so that leaves room for personal responsibility.
#2930·Benjamin Davies revised 9 days agoI noticed that you’ve started a bunch of discussions but I don’t believe you’ve reached a resolution on any of them.
I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.
For example, I am currently applying #2840, and it is working well. There is no obvious thing I should be doing in Veritula to note that. I would probably only bring it up again if it didn’t solve the problem in the end.
I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.
Should take personal responsibility and not blame the tool.
#2948·Benjamin Davies, 9 days agoWould you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for how you want to use Veritula?
This seems like a good idea.
If your goal, like mine, is to live a life that is 100% guided by reason, which basically means (#2844) to never adopt ideas that have pending criticisms, you could use Veritula to identify ideas of yours that have pending criticisms so you can either reject those ideas or address the criticisms.
To that end, I suggest you submit a single idea you are confident is correct, and then try your hardest to criticize it. Depending on the idea, I may join you.
It’s a good goal to perfect an idea to the point you’ve mastered it, addressed all objections, understand the objections better than your opponents, etc.
If this sounds up your alley, I recommend starting with something easy. Zelalem tried writing a summary of fallibilism which, after 13 revisions, still contains mistakes.
#2955·Benjamin Davies, 9 days agoThis would work well for some open threads, but not others (like anything I have left unaddressed on Veritula).
That doesn’t mean it can’t be part of the solution.
#2954·Benjamin Davies, 9 days agoIdea: Keep a document tracking open threads, updating it every night. Every morning, feed it to Gemini Flash and have it coach me on what I could work towards resolving today.
This would work well for some open threads, but not others (like anything I have left unaddressed on Veritula).
#2952·Benjamin Davies revised 9 days agoClosing threads is a common problem in my life. I should look for ways to increase my propensity to resolve/finish things I start.
Methods I look for need to allow for the fact that not everything needs to be resolved, i.e. that having some open threads is inevitable, and that some of those threads are acceptable to leave open indefinitely.
Idea: Keep a document tracking open threads, updating it every night. Every morning, feed it to Gemini Flash and have it coach me on what I could work towards resolving today.
Closing threads is a common problem in my life. I should look for ways to increase my propensity to resolve/finish things I start.
The solution needs to allow for the fact that not everything needs to be resolved, that having some open threads is inevitable, and that some of those threads are acceptable to leave open indefinitely.
Closing threads is a common problem in my life. I should look for ways to increase my propensity to resolve/finish things I start.
Methods I look for need to allow for the fact that not everything needs to be resolved, i.e. that having some open threads is inevitable, and that some of those threads are acceptable to leave open indefinitely.
#2948·Benjamin Davies, 9 days agoWould you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for how you want to use Veritula?
This seems like a good idea.
Closing threads is a common problem in my life. I should look for ways to increase my propensity to resolve/finish things I start.
The solution needs to allow for the fact that not everything needs to be resolved, that having some open threads is inevitable, and that some of those threads are acceptable to leave open indefinitely.
#2949·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 days agoI think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.
It does. For example, you could post an idea saying ‘I have decided to do X.’ Like in your discussion on where to move.
You can also indicate resolution of top-level criticisms by archiving them when they have pending counter-criticisms. The meta discussion is an example of top-level ideas reaching resolutions in this way.
As I think about this, I notice that—once I solve a given problem with a new idea—I have no habit to consciously acknowledge that a problem has been solved, much less to write down that it has been solved. The ex-problem fades from my mind as I set my mind on a new problem.
I could try to make it a habit to explicitly acknowledge when I do find solutions to problems. If the solution is found on Veritula, it would be natural to acknowledge it here too.
I like the idea of explicitly acknowledging progress in this way, because it might help me become more prideful in the Objectivist sense.