Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Badges
Activity
#1877·Dennis HackethalOP, about 20 hours agoThat would probably be stretching the capabilities of Stimulus…
Could probably use Turbo frames instead.
#1869·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoThe red ‘Criticized’ label could be clickable and filter the displayed comments ‘in place’.
That would probably be stretching the capabilities of Stimulus…
#1865·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoThe red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many outstanding criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five outstanding criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify outstanding criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only outstanding criticisms.
There could be a separate button to filter comments down.
#1874·Zelalem Mekonnen, about 24 hours agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Ideas (including criticisms), even if they are related should generally be submitted separately. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
Now I’m submitting a criticism that contains a flaw. It has a tpyo.
Try counter-critizing my criticism by pointing out the typo. Observe that the red label saying ‘Criticized’ on #1874 disappears once you submit your criticism.
In other words, your counter-criticism ‘neutralizes’ my criticism.
Revising ideas and submitting counter-criticisms are the two ways to address criticisms.
#1871·Zelalem Mekonnen, 1 day agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
… must be their its own.
You’ve introduced a new typo. You should get in the habit of carefully reviewing your texts before you submit them.
If you change “Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own” to ‘Ideas (including criticisms) should generally be submitted separately even if related’, you get to address both current criticisms.
#1871·Zelalem Mekonnen, 1 day agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't submit bulk ideas or criticisms. Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own.
The word ‘must’ is too strict here. As I explained in #1870, ideas should generally be submitted separately, but there are exceptions.
#1864·Zelalem Mekonnen, 1 day agoWhat if the point an author is trying to make takes multiple ideas? Say we are talking about comic books and I say "DC comics are better than Marvel, because Thor is a better character than Superman, even thou Batman might be a better character than Iron man?"
Good question. That can happen.
It’s ultimately at the author’s discretion. It’s generally best practice to submit one idea at a time.
However, if the author is aware of the risk of receiving bulk criticism but decides the risk is worth the benefit of including multiple ideas in a single post – because multiple ideas are required to make this particular post coherent, say – then that’s his prerogative.
It varies by situation and requires good judgment.
#1865·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoThe red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many outstanding criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five outstanding criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify outstanding criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only outstanding criticisms.
The red ‘Criticized’ label could be clickable and filter the displayed comments ‘in place’.
The red ‘Criticized’ label could beclickable and leada link leading to a filtered version of `ideas#show`.
#1865·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoThe red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many outstanding criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five outstanding criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify outstanding criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only outstanding criticisms.
The red ‘Criticized’ label could be clickable and lead to a filtered version of ideas#show.
The red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many outstanding criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five outstanding criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify outstanding criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only outstanding criticisms.
#1630·Edwin de WitOP, about 2 months agoSynonymous indeed. In a previous video I labeled Deutsch's terms to make them easier to discuss and get a better sense for. You're correct that the specific mapping I use is:
Statements = explicit knowledge
Intuitions = inexplicit knowledge
Drives = unconscious knowledge
In light of (at the time of writing) three outstanding criticisms of your new terminology (#1630), what do you plan to do, if anything?
Some ideas: if you disagree with the criticisms, we could discuss further; if you agree, we could come up with ways to correct the error, like (just spitballing here) revising your terminology going forward or posting disclaimers on previous publications.
Either way, it would be good to reach some sort of conclusion.
#1861·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day agoWe don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own.
It’s true that each criticism should be submitted separately, but that’s not related to bulk criticism in the way you seem to be suggesting.
Imagine a post containing multiple ideas. Then a single criticism of that post will make it look as though all of the ideas in that post are problematic. If the criticism actually only applies to a subset of the ideas, that’s bulk criticism.
For example, somebody submits a post saying: ‘I love Batman. I love Spider-Man.’ Then somebody else criticizes the post by saying ‘Batman sucks because <some reasoning>.’ Now it looks like Spider-Man has received criticism, too, even though the criticism only applies to Batman.
See if you want to change the quoted passage to: ‘We submit only one idea at a time. Same for criticisms.’
I’ve now submitted three criticisms at once. Recall that addressing them requires two steps: changing your idea and deselecting the criticisms your change addresses.
You can address all three criticisms in the same revision, as I believe you’ve done before. Or you can divvy it up. That’s up to you.
Addressing criticisms and not being easily overwhelmed when you receive multiple criticisms at once are both crucial aspects of rationality. You’re on the right track.
#1858·Zelalem Mekonnen, 1 day agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own.
It’s true that each criticism should be submitted separately, but that’s not related to bulk criticism in the way you seem to be suggesting.
Imagine a post containing multiple ideas. Then a single criticism of that post will make it look as though all of the ideas in that post are problematic. If the criticism actually only applies to a subset of the ideas, that’s bulk criticism.
For example, somebody submits a post saying: ‘I love Batman. I love Spider-Man.’ Then somebody else criticizes the post by saying ‘Batman sucks because <some reasoning>.’ Now it looks like Spider-Man has received criticism, too, even though the criticism only applies to Batman.
See if you want to change the quoted passage to: ‘We submit only one idea at a time. Same for criticisms.’
#1858·Zelalem Mekonnen, 1 day agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own.
Typo: “in its own” should be ‘on its own’.
#1858·Zelalem Mekonnen, 1 day agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
Well done. Now let’s practice addressing multiple criticisms at once. Here’s the first one:
[W]e first start with an idea/conjecture.
It need not be a conjecture. It could be a conclusion of some other train of thought, say. I recommend changing it from “idea/conjecture” to just ‘idea’.
#1854·Zelalem Mekonnen, 2 days agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
Making progress. Just a minor quibble next, but worth practicing with:
Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own.
There’s a typo: “it's” should be ‘its’ (no apostrophe).
See if you can revise your idea to address this criticism. Remember, there are two steps: changing the spelling and deselecting this criticism.
#1851·Zelalem Mekonnen, 2 days agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.
I see that you’ve revised your idea, but you forgot to deselect the criticism (#1848) your revision addresses. As I wrote in that criticism (emphasis added):
Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.
But #1848 is still being rendered as a criticism of your revision, and your revision has the red label that says ‘Criticized (1)’ as a result.
When a revision addresses a criticism, you don’t want it to continue being marked as criticized by that criticism. That’s why the revision form lists criticisms, so you can uncheck the ones your revision addresses.
Try revising #1851 and remember to uncheck idea #1848 underneath the revision form. Uncheck this criticism (the one I am writing now) as well.
Once you’ve submitted the revision form, verify that #1848 is not being shown underneath the new revision.
#1849·Zelalem Mekonnen, 3 days agoWhat of for "Supersedes previous version?" box? Would that be selected, since the new version would supersede the current version.
Checking that box is useful when you want a revision to override the original.
If you check it, Veritula automatically posts a criticism of the original idea on your behalf. This way, if the original idea is a criticism, it gets ‘neutralized’, which is usually what you want when you revise a criticism.
Consider what would happen if you didn’t neutralize an old criticism: then the parent idea would show two pending criticisms.
#1833 (your idea) isn’t a criticism. Even if it were, it’s already been criticized (#1848). So checking the box isn’t strictly necessary. But feel free to check it and see what happens.
#1833·Zelalem Mekonnen, 5 days agoIf I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate criticism.
Decent start with some room for improvement. Let’s learn Veritula by doing. I’ll submit criticisms of your idea one by one and you can practice Veritula by addressing them. Here’s the first one:
Also, avoid duplicate criticism.
Yes, but we should avoid duplicate ideas in general.
Try revising #1833 to address this criticism. Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.
Make sure that at each step you understand why you’re performing that step. Ask first if you don’t.
#1845·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show. That page should also scroll the target idea into view in case its preceded by too much context that would otherwise push it below the viewport.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Implemented as of 632c0d7.
14 unchanged lines collapsedEvery idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just beideas#show.↵ ↵ Thisideas#show. That page should also scroll the target idea into view in case its preceded by too much context that would otherwise push it below the viewport.↵ ↵ This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
#1841·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
The target idea should be scrolled into view. Otherwise, it might not always be visible, which could cause confusion. See eg #1811, which is preceded by a long idea and thus not visible on page load at the time of writing.
#1841·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.
Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Implemented as of 55d02a7.
10 unchanged lines collapsedThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelatedideas.↵ ↵ Cyclingideas.↵ ↵ For parent ideas, cycle only through revisionson the parent level might hide the idea butthat lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly initself isn’t a big deal:theuser can just refreshUI. For thepage anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.↵ ↵ Every non-top-leveltarget idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.↵ ↵ Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single commentthread.↵ ↵ Thisthread. This could just be ideas#show.↵ ↵ This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.