Activity Feed

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #2886.

I am currently unable to zoom out to the full width when accessing Veritula on mobile.

#2886·Benjamin Davies, 3 months ago

Give this another shot. Should be fixed as of 6c7e74b.

For very deeply nested discussions, you may still need to scroll sideways to see some ideas. But you should now be able to zoom out far enough to always fit any idea into the viewport.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3951.

Done as of cc1ab95.

Ruby example:

ruby
def criticized? idea

  pending_criticisms(idea).any?

end



def pending_criticisms idea

  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| pending_criticisms(c).none? }

end



def criticisms idea

  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)

end

JS example (h/t ChatGPT):

javascript
function 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);

}
#3951·Dennis HackethalOP, 13 days ago

There’s a small issue related to previewing changes in code blocks: even when there are no changes yet, if the code overflows horizontally, the scroll shadow is shown through DOM manipulation, which in turn triggers the diffing library into thinking the user made a change.

So then the same code block is shown without any changes, under the ‘Changes’ tab, which is confusing. It should still just say ‘No changes’.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3951.

Done as of cc1ab95.

Ruby example:

ruby
def criticized? idea

  pending_criticisms(idea).any?

end



def pending_criticisms idea

  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| pending_criticisms(c).none? }

end



def criticisms idea

  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)

end

JS example (h/t ChatGPT):

javascript
function 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);

}
#3951·Dennis HackethalOP, 13 days ago

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.

  Dennis Hackethal archived idea #3986 along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3986.

Bounties should be clear about what currency they are being paid out in.

#3986·Benjamin Davies, 8 days ago

Valid. As of 7af3c7b, the site uses ‘USD’ throughout.

  Benjamin Davies revised criticism #4008.

This is not exactly true. The business still needs to produce something people want to buy, at a price they will accept. This is separate from competition.

Another way to say that is: all businesses are in competition with all others at the broadest level.

If you liked Snickers bars, but they suddenly 5x in price, it isn’t necessarily true that you will buy a different chocolate bar. You might go to the bakery instead, or use that money to put a little more fuel in your car.

This is not exactly true. The business still needs to produce something people want to buy, at a price they will accept. This is separate from competition.

Another way to say that is: all businesses are in competition with all others at the broadest level.

If you like Snickers bars, but they suddenly 5x in price, it isn’t necessarily true that you will buy a different chocolate bar. You might go to the bakery instead, or use that money to put a little more fuel in your car.

  Benjamin Davies criticized idea #3991.

Can shorting be a mechanism of error correction?

I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and lazy as possible.

#3991·Zelalem Mekonnen revised 8 days ago

This is not exactly true. The business still needs to produce something people want to buy, at a price they will accept. This is separate from competition.

Another way to say that is: all businesses are in competition with all others at the broadest level.

If you liked Snickers bars, but they suddenly 5x in price, it isn’t necessarily true that you will buy a different chocolate bar. You might go to the bakery instead, or use that money to put a little more fuel in your car.

  Benjamin Davies commented on criticism #4006.

I could indeed have been clearer. The point isn’t that using creativity to re-establish direction is the distinguishing feature. The distinction is the method of conflict resolution.

In a non-coercive, rational resolution, you take the distraction or impulse seriously, examine its content, and form a theory of what problem it’s signaling. Then you conjecture candidate solutions and select one to try. A common solution is to acknowledge the distraction and explicitly schedule it for later, which removes the unfinished business feeling it creates in the moment. Direction returns because the conflict got resolved.

In self-coercion, the method is irrational and coercive: you don’t examine the content of the distraction at all. You steamroll it or swat it away. You may regain direction, but the underlying problem remains unresolved.

Both methods cost creativity, but the coercive one causes more downstream problems (maybe even suffering), which then requires further creative expenditure to be resolved in the future.

#4006·Edwin de WitOP, 8 days ago

Thank you, I think that is an important clarification.

  Edwin de Wit addressed criticism #3958.

Minor distractions, impulses, or shifts in attention repeatedly pull us away, forcing creativity to be spent again and again just to re-establish intentional direction.

How is using creativity to re-establish direction distinguished from self-coercing? I'm having trouble seeing the difference.

#3958·Benjamin Davies, 10 days ago

I could indeed have been clearer. The point isn’t that using creativity to re-establish direction is the distinguishing feature. The distinction is the method of conflict resolution.

In a non-coercive, rational resolution, you take the distraction or impulse seriously, examine its content, and form a theory of what problem it’s signaling. Then you conjecture candidate solutions and select one to try. A common solution is to acknowledge the distraction and explicitly schedule it for later, which removes the unfinished business feeling it creates in the moment. Direction returns because the conflict got resolved.

In self-coercion, the method is irrational and coercive: you don’t examine the content of the distraction at all. You steamroll it or swat it away. You may regain direction, but the underlying problem remains unresolved.

Both methods cost creativity, but the coercive one causes more downstream problems (maybe even suffering), which then requires further creative expenditure to be resolved in the future.

  Dennis Hackethal archived idea #3107 along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3107.

Preview links of discussions should show the name of the discussion being linked.

See eg https://x.com/agentofapollo/status/1991252721618547023

h/t @benjamin-davies

#3107·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months ago

I implemented this a while back.

X caches link previews, so old previews remain the same. But new previews feature the discussion title, see eg https://www.opengraph.xyz/url/https%3A%2F%2Fveritula.com%2Fdiscussions%2Fcriticisms-of-zcash.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #4001.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize an idea.

You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #3481.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks, say, per pending criticism received by some deadline.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). The user also indicates a ceiling for the maximum amount they are willing to spend.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. They may even award a bounty to problematic criticisms, at their discretion. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period. If doing so would exceed the ceiling, more recent criticisms do not get the bounty.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period.

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #3061.

Could this feature be unified with #2669 somehow?

#3061·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months ago

No need, see #3420.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3912.

Been trying a slight modification of bounties in prod for a couple of weeks or so. Working well so far.

@dirk-meulenbelt recently offered to chip in for a bounty I want to run. That got me thinking: multiple people should be able to fund bounties.

#3912·Dennis HackethalOP, 18 days ago

This is now a feature, see the ‘Funding’ section of a bounty.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #2430.

I notice that when I amend a criticism I have made, I’m not able to see what I am criticising. It would be good if the edit screen showed the comment I am disagreeing with similar to how it does when I first go to write a criticism.

When 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.

  Dennis Hackethal archived idea #1789 along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #2717.

Feature to collapse all criticized ideas of a discussion? Useful for todo lists.

#2717·Dennis HackethalOP revised 3 months ago

Archiving covers this.

  Dennis Hackethal archived idea #2669 along with any revisions.
  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #3062 and marked it as a criticism.

Could this feature be unified with #2811 somehow?

Could this feature be unified with #2811 somehow?

  Zelalem Mekonnen commented on criticism #3980.

Do you mean error correction within the company or at the level of the economy?

#3980·Benjamin DaviesOP, 8 days ago

Both. But I might be wrong on this, because competition doesn't create error correction either, humans do.

  Zelalem Mekonnen addressed criticism #3985.

Why haven't all atheists killed themselves?

#3985·Benjamin Davies, 8 days ago

Not meant literally.

  Zelalem Mekonnen revised idea #3990. The revision addresses idea #3984.

Can shorting be a mechanism of error correction?

I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and evil as possible.

Can shorting be a mechanism of error correction?

I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and lazy as possible.

  Zelalem Mekonnen revised idea #3966.

Is shorting be a mechanism of error correction?

I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and evil as possible.

Can shorting be a mechanism of error correction?

I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and evil as possible.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3978.

The sentiment of the sentence stands. Even with uncomputable functions, one shouldn't waste time in trying to solve them.

#3978·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 8 days ago

Then I suggest revising #3968 so that it still captures the sentiment without containing factual falsehoods.