Activity Feed
#3433·Dennis HackethalOP revised 1 day agoCouldn’t I let the initial authorization expire and then re-authorize the card?
Maybe, but what if re-authorization fails? Then nobody gets paid.
Couldn’t I re-authorize the card?
Couldn’t I let the initial authorization expire and then re-authorize the card?
#3431·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoThe bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.
Couldn’t I re-authorize the card?
#2524·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoI’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline. Each counter-criticism could reset the deadline to give everyone ample time to respond.
The bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.
#3424·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoRather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.
But that would mean that the first criticism receives a payout at the same time the last criticism receives a payout. That creates an incentive to ignore new bounties in favor of older ones.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether contributions are still worth making.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
#3423·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoThat could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
#2811·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoFeature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
Rather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.
That could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.
#3421·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoThe initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per unproblematic criticism.
For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.
But that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.
#2811·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoFeature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
The initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per unproblematic criticism.
For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.
Idea: voice spaces, like Twitter spaces, except an AI generates a transcript and automatically turns it into a discussion tree, with criticism chains and all.
#3417·Erik Orrje, 3 days agoNo worries :-). Yeah, this is the part that confuses me about correspondence:
Which fields (apart from science) have "facts", and which consist merely of useful/adapted knowledge?
For instance, are there musical facts, economic facts, aesthetic facts, etc?
I think of it in terms of error correction: all fields where progress is possible allow us to identify and correct errors.
Empirical fields use facts. In empirical fields, error identification involves finding a discrepancy between theories and observation.
I’d consider aesthetics and economics at least partly empirical since you can make testable predictions. You can test an economic policy, for example, and see whether its predictions match (correspond to) outcomes. In music, things can sound unpleasant.
#3405·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 days agoSorry for the late reply. I don’t know. I don’t think the aim of math is correspondence to physical facts like in science. But maybe it’s correspondence to mathematical facts.
No worries :-). Yeah, this is the part that confuses me about correspondence:
Which fields (apart from science) have "facts", and which consist merely of useful/adapted knowledge?
For instance, are there musical facts, economic facts, aesthetic facts, etc?
#3409·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days agoBenjamin suggests making it clearer that you can use Veritula by yourself.
Done, see #3413.
I don’t know anyone on Veritula. Can I still join?
Yes! Start by chiming in on one of the existing discussions or creating a new discussion. People will likely contribute.
If you have a topic you’d rather discuss in private, with a select few, make your discussion private. No one except the people you invite and admins will see it.
You can even have productive discussions by yourself. Not sure what to make for dinner? Want to move but not sure where? Start a discussion, submit some ideas, criticisms, and counter-criticisms, and see which ideas remain without any pending criticisms.
You’ll gain clarity to make rational decisions.
Some things wrong with flouride:
https://x.com/ChrisMasterjohn/status/1853076325067591812?s=20