Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Joined Jun 2024·Ideas
Founder Veritula. Author. Software engineer. I study the mind and build tools for thinkers. Ex Apple. Translator of The Beginning of Infinity.
But having a separate model isn’t exactly keeping things simple either.
#4416·Dennis HackethalOP, 12 minutes agoThat would prevent existing discussions from being embedded on other sites. But why prevent that?
To keep things simple. This is just an MVP.
Extend the existing Discussion model to have a nullable embed_url. An embedded discussion would not have a title.
#4415·Dennis HackethalOP, 15 minutes agoCreate an
EmbeddedDiscussionmodel, separate fromDiscussion.
That would prevent existing discussions from being embedded on other sites. But why prevent that?
Create an EmbeddedDiscussion model, separate from Discussion.
#4410·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 hours agoOption 1: when you create a discussion, an embed code is shown, which you can paste anywhere.
That would mean people couldn’t programmatically use embed codes, like on their blogs. They would always have to manually go into V and create a discussion first.
Option 2: an embed code is shown on your profile, with a page-url attribute you fill in. That’s the page where you place the code.
Option 2: an embed code is shown on your profile, with a page-url attribute you fill in. That’s the page where you place the code. The first time someone posts a comment, the associated discussion is created. Instead of a title, the discussion gets assigned the URL. That way, people seeing the discussion on V can open the URL for context.
Option 2: an embed code is shown on your profile, with a page-url attribute you fill in. That’s the page where you place the code.
Option 1: when you create a discussion, an embed code is shown, which you can paste anywhere.
#4406·Dirk Meulenbelt, 1 day agoIf finality = foundationalism, then yeah they're the same and I was right all along. Justificationism and foundationalism are the same thing.
You could use your own definition of justificationism that equates it to foundationalism. But then you’d want to explain that choice.
Regardless, we’re getting too bogged down on terms. I think at this point it would be easier for you to just change your article so it either uses established terms with their accepted definitions or explains departures from them.
#4406·Dirk Meulenbelt, 1 day agoIf finality = foundationalism, then yeah they're the same and I was right all along. Justificationism and foundationalism are the same thing.
#2844·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoA Life Guided by Reason
In #2281, I explain how Veritula helps you make rational decisions – in other words, how to live rationally, ie, a life guided by reason. (I use the words ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ synonymously. The same goes for ‘unreason’ and ‘irrationality’.)
A life guided by reason defies the dominant, Kantian philosophy of our age. Ayn Rand summarized that philosophy as, “Be rational, except when you don’t feel like it.”1 In other words, it says to mix reason and unreason; to stray from rationality arbitrarily; to be rational only sometimes. It claims that there is a necessary clash between reason and emotion. It is an attack on reason, an attempt to do the impossible – and it leads to dissatisfaction with yourself and conflict with others.
If you are rational only sometimes, if you stray from rationality arbitrarily, then you are irrational. There is no third option. This conclusion can be proven easily: if you tried to stray from rationality non-arbitrarily, ie, if you tried to come up with a considered argument for straying from rationality, you could only do so by following the steps in #2281. And those steps are the application of rationality again.
So it’s impossible to stray from rationality rationally. There is no gray area between reason and unreason. Rationality has an all-or-nothing character. This does not mean that reason has to snuff out all emotion. On the contrary: there is no necessary clash between rationality on the one hand and emotion on the other. Rationality means finding unanimous consent between emotion, explicit thought, inexplicit thought, and any other kind of idea.
If you follow the steps in #2281 consistently, then you are always rational. A life worth living is one guided exclusively by reason. Consistent application of rationality may be difficult at first, but with practice, it will get easier. Master it, and you will have a fighting chance of becoming what David Deutsch calls a beginning of infinity.
Ayn Rand. Philosophy: Who Needs It. ‘From the Horse’s Mouth’ (p. 110). 1975. Kindle Edition. As quoted previously.
#2281·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 months agoRational Decision-Making
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
In that model, the final justification ends up serving as foundation.
So? How is that foundationalism?
So? How is that foundationalism?
#554·Tom Nassis, over 1 year agoVeritula deserves to scale to the size of Wikipedia.
But it never will, unless its users innovate.
How can the global success of Wikipedia inspire Veritula?
#3419·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoIdea: voice spaces, like Twitter spaces, except an AI generates a transcript and automatically turns it into a discussion tree, with criticism chains and all.
This seems overkill for now. If people want to do this off-platform and then feed it into Veritula, they can do that.
“Justification without finality is fake.” (#4391) In other words, if it doesn’t claim to be final, it’s not justification.
#4262·Dennis HackethalOP, 19 days agoAnother idea: letting users post ideas to their own profile. Such ideas wouldn’t be part of a discussion.
Implemented as of ecc72ff. Check your profile.
This is the first idea posted straight to my profile, outside of discussions.
Acknowledge the contradiction between disregarding market developments and taking them into account
Dollar-Cost Averaging
Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) is when you invest a fixed amount on a regular basis regardless of market developments.
This practice can work well long term for assets that reflect the value of the entire stock market (or a big part of it).
Long term, we can expect the stock market as a whole to gain value. So if you invest part of your income every month, say, then your position will grow in the long run.
In the meantime, you get to reduce risk by not investing all your money at once. You also get to react to developments that affect the stock market and can decide to interrupt your investment schedule. But I personally like ‘boring’ investment strategies, meaning strategies that are automated and reliable.
Dollar-Cost Averaging
Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) is when you invest a fixed amount on a regular basis regardless of market developments.
This practice can work well long term for assets that reflect the value of the entire stock market (or a big part of it).
Long term, we can expect the stock market as a whole to gain value. So if you invest part of your income every month, say, then your position will grow in the long run.
In the meantime, you get to reduce risk by not investing all your money at once. You also get to react to developments that affect the stock market and can decide to interrupt your investment schedule. But again, the idea is typically to invest regardless of market developments. I personally like ‘boring’ investment strategies, meaning strategies that are automated and reliable.