Activity Feed
#2637·Benjamin Davies, 3 months agoWhen copying a box quote from Veritula, the box quote formatting (>) is lost.
When you copy text for an inline quote, you wouldn’t want the box-quote formatting.
Done as of 19009b2. Discussions now have a link to search ideas, which points to the search page with that discussion already preselected in a new discussion dropdown.
How many times need something be replicated before the term 'replicator' should apply? If it's a matter of reliability, what defines reliable? Is "replicator-ness" on a continuum?
#4041·Tyler MillsOP revised 2 days agoWhat is the distinction between replication and self-replication?
The distinction is where the knowledge for performing the replication is physically located.
Replication is: an entity in an environment being recreated or copied because of the environment (which can include the entity, as in the case of self-replication). The general case.
Self-replication is the special case of replication where: an entity is replicated as caused by aspects of itself alone. The knowledge for its replication is within it.
What is the distinction between replication and self-replication? Does anything "truly" self-replicate?
What is the distinction between replication and self-replication?
Either in biological evolution, or the evolution of ideas (programs) in a mind, is a mechanism for self-replication required for knowledge to grow? That is, do entities within the system need to be able to recreate themselves, or cause themselves to be recreated, for there to be progress? Why?
What is the distinction between replication and self-replication? Does anything "truly" self-replicate?
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the review period ends.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.
How much will I get paid?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. Toward the end, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.
If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.
Can I fund an existing bounty?
Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is authorized but not charged.
If the bounty owner accepts any submissions during the review period, your card is charged the full authorization. If he rejects all submissions, your card is never charged.
Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
How Do Bounties Work?
Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.
Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.
How do I participate?
Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.
That’s it – you’re in.
How do I get paid?
Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.
To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:
- Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
- Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms when the review period begins.
- Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
- You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the review period ends.
The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.
Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.
How much will I get paid?
The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.
For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.
Fractions of cents are not paid out.
How do I run a bounty?
Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).
Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.
Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.
The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. Toward the end, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.
If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.
Can I fund an existing bounty?
Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is authorized but not charged.
If the bounty owner accepts any submissions during the review period, your card is charged the full authorization. If he rejects all submissions, your card is never charged.
Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.
Start a bounty today. Terms apply.
#2109·Edwin de Wit revised 4 months ago@dennis-hackethal you have regularly pointed out to me that it’s a mistake to assign strengths or weaknesses to arguments—for example, in #1809 and #1927. I’d love to get to the bottom of that.
On one hand, I see what you mean. A criticism can either be counter-criticized or it can be an unresolved error. If it’s a bad criticism, you quickly counter it—say, by clarifying why it’s irrelevant—and move on.
I also see why talking about a “gradient” or comparative strength between arguments is problematic: there’s no objective criterion to measure them against. We can only say one theory is better than another when both attempt to explain the same phenomenon—then we can evaluate them using properties such as hard-to-varyness and other criteria Deutsch describes. (We can get into that if you’d like, though I don’t think that’s our main disagreement.). But this comparison doesn’t apply when we’re dealing with very different criticisms of a single idea, because there’s no common standard to measure them against. Comparing their “strength” becomes arbitrary.
However, I still think there are good and bad criticisms, just as there are good and bad explanations (following Deutsch’s distinction: for instance, bad explanations are easy to vary or point to authorities to justify themselves rather than offering a hard-to-vary account of how and why something works). While I could simply counter-criticize bad criticisms and move on, there’s also the matter of efficiency and opportunity cost: I don’t want to waste time repeatedly countering poor criticisms, or worse, get stuck in circular debates with people who don’t recognize that some arguments aren’t good criticisms at all. I’d rather focus my attention on good criticisms.
To clarify what I mean, here’s an excerpt from my book:
The most important principle to remember while criticizing is: Criticize, don’t defend or attack. Good explanations invite criticism of their intrinsic content—whether the explanation itself works, solves the problem, and avoids worse side effects. Bad explanations, by contrast, deflect criticism onto irrelevant, extrinsic properties such as authority or track record—e.g., “this is the method that successful company X uses,” “I believe strongly in this approach,” or “it’s coming from person Y, so it’s worthless.”
That kind of “criticism” isn’t real criticism at all. It’s just attacking or defending. And when we play that game, the explanation itself stays untouched and stagnant. The idea doesn’t get scrutinized or improved—it only gets shielded or dismissed for irrelevant reasons.That being said, I agree with the points you brought up in #2061, namely that there can be no positive arguments for an idea. By extension, if Veritula would require a specific format or mode of criticism, we’d fall into the very error Popper warns about with the Myth of the Framework—the mistaken belief that criticism requires a shared framework or language. So, Veritula should functionally remain as it is. At most, you might consider adding guidelines on what constitutes good versus poor criticism, so that critics can improve their skills. But I agree: the person who created the idea should remain solely responsible for addressing the criticisms they receive, not dismissing them as “bad” and moving on.
Tagging @bart-vanderhaegen because he and I have discussed this at length—in fact, I got the defending/attacking framing from him.
There is now a dedicated discussion on the topic of hard to vary. So I’m archiving this idea. But feel free to continue there.
#2912·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months ago‘Discussions’ are too narrow a term for a collection of ideas. See #2878.
While ideas should always be ‘discussable’, that doesn’t mean everyone who wants to share an idea always wants to start a discussion. Maybe they just want to put some information out there.
Tyler recently wrote to me, in the context of a question he wanted to figure out, “would be good to Veritula this.” Cool seeing ‘Veritula’ used as a verb.
I have found myself using this term naturally, as in ‘starting a thread on Veritula’. I believe I’ve heard others say this, too.
#3997·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 days agoWhen 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.
Valid. As of c310cbb, the most recent parent is shown above the idea you’re editing.
I spoke to soon. Rolling this back for now. Too jittery when scrolling on mobile. Non-trivial to implement. Need to see how other sites do it.
#4023·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoWould be nice if the copy button was sticky-top so that it scrolled with the user.
Done as of 43c4ecc.
Dennis Hackethal updated discussion ‘autopair.js’.
The ‘About’ section changed as follows:
Issue tracker for the autopairing + typethrough package at https://github.com/dchacke/autopair.js
Issue tracker for the autopairing + typethrough package.
https://github.com/dchacke/autopair.js
https://www.npmjs.com/package/autopair
#4030·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoWhen you wrap selected text, the selection should remain.
A regression (I believe) has broken this feature.
Fixed as of 830711a (1.2.5).
When you wrap selected text, the selection should remain.
A regression (I believe) has broken this feature.
#4027·Dennis HackethalOP revised 3 days agoOn mobile, there needs to be more of a padding on the right, inside the code block.
Done as of 609b5c3.
There needs to be more of a padding on the right, inside the code block.
On mobile, there needs to be more of a padding on the right, inside the code block.
#3951·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 days agoDone as of
cc1ab95.Ruby example:
rubydef criticized? ideapending_criticisms(idea).any?enddef pending_criticisms ideacriticisms(idea).filter { |c| pending_criticisms(c).none? }enddef criticisms ideachildren(idea).filter(&:criticism?)endJS example (h/t ChatGPT):
javascriptfunction criticized(idea) {return pendingCriticisms(idea).length > 0;}function pendingCriticisms(idea) {return criticisms(idea).filter(c => pendingCriticisms(c).length === 0);}function criticisms(idea) {return children(idea).filter(c => c.isCriticism);}
There needs to be more of a padding on the right, inside the code block.
The diff view can’t handle the removal/replacement of entire code blocks yet. The removed block looks broken, the new block doesn’t show at all.
The diff view can’t handle the removal/replacement of entire code blocks yet. The removed block looks broken, the new block doesn’t show at all. See activity 3207 in dev.