Activity Feed

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.

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.

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.

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.

Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for how you want to use Veritula?

This seems like a good idea.

See revision #2945.

This is ambiguous.

That’s a criticism, so this idea should be marked as a criticism.

Similarity is fine if it is less narrow, but ‘thread’ doesn’t seem any less narrow than ‘discussion’ to me. A ‘thread’ usually means a reply chain.

Why is similarity a bad thing in and of itself? It can be reminiscent of discussions as long as it’s less narrow.

I can’t decide if this communicates a grouping of ideas. Seems borderline.

“Go check out the Karl Popper context on Veritula” would only make sense if you are already a Veritula user who is accustomed to using this terminology.

Makes me think of “subject of discussion”.

I have an inexplicit criticism of this relating to “school subject”.

This actually seems anti-discussion. Sounds like a grouping of ideas that are only related by conceptual proximity, rather than building on each other.

This makes me think of “discussion topic”.

Similar to ‘discussion’.

Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for using Veritula?

This is ambiguous. To be clear, are you asking if I would like to make an explicit personal methodology for using the site, as part of my effort described in #2899? Or are you inviting me to formulate an explicit methodology for users of Veritula in general? (I realise these aren’t mutually exclusive.)

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.

Too jargon-y.

It means that I have to scroll sideways to see the end of each line in a paragraph, which makes it more difficult to read ideas. It feels quite bad to use, compared to using Veritula on my computer, where the entire width of a paragraph is visible at all times.

A solution might be to adjust the mobile site dynamically to fit the user’s phone width.

Doesn’t communicate a grouping of ideas.