Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
#2522·Benjamin Davies revised about 1 month agoYes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).
The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.
Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands, but maybe it belongs somewhere higher up the chain.
Superseded by #2524.
I’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline.
I’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline. Each counter-criticism could reset the deadline to give everyone ample time to respond.
As a reminder, at some point we will need to do some housekeeping because any criticisms of #2108 are probably also going to be criticisms #2109 and we want an intact criticism chain.
I’m marking this as a criticism so we don’t forget. And when we’re done with the housekeeping, we can say so in a counter-criticism to ‘check off’ that todo item.
As a reminder, at some point we will need to do some housekeeping because any criticisms of #2108 are probably also going to be criticisms of #2109 and we want an intact criticism chain.
I’m marking this as a criticism so we don’t forget. And when we’re done with the housekeeping, we can say so in a counter-criticism to ‘check off’ that todo item.
Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying.
Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying, wouldn’t they?
#2504·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoI would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.
Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying.
#2472·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoBut then bad actors could always submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to avoid paying.
Idea: when you create a bounty, you set the amount you’re willing to pay per criticism and a ceiling for the total you’re willing to spend (no. of crits * amount per crit).
Your card is authorized for twice the ceiling. In addition, there’s a button to report abuse. If you’re a good citizen, you’ll be charged the ceiling, at most. But if you’re found to submit arbitrary criticisms to avoid paying, the bounty stops early and your card is charged the full authorization.
#2504·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoI would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.
If you submit a criticism, you won’t want to wait indefinitely to get paid just because others are keeping the discussion going in a different branch.
Removing outdated criticism
I suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?
I suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?
#2494·Erik OrrjeOP, about 1 month agoThanks for the criticism. New argument: Utility (besides usefulness as money) is not strictly necessary, although it may be nice to have. The value of a currency is set by supply and demand.
Supply: A limited supply (scarcity) may increase the value.
Demand: Demand is set determined by how well people percieve the currency's features as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Important factors include: Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability. Gold has had most of these features (importantly scarcity, only 2% inflation from mining). However, it severely lacks in portability due to being a metal, compared to hard digital assets.
So the value of a currency is mostly determined by its perceived usefulness as money, not its utility for other things.
New arguments may not belong at the bottom of the criticism chain. Depending on context, it may need to be either a new sibling at the top of the chain or a completely new standalone idea.
I didn’t check this exchange in detail to say for sure. But I recommend checking, so I’m marking this as a criticism. If you think the new argument can remain as is, leave a counter-criticism to neutralize my criticism.
#2501·Benjamin Davies, about 1 month agoSince I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479, I will make a new criticism. I think #2479 is unclear.
I would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.
A small downside is that a bounty can go on indefinitely, but that is simply an extension of the fact that solutions to problems don’t come reliably.
… I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479…
Editing ideas should be fixed now. (You won’t need to edit this one, though, since I’ve done the requisite housekeeping.)
That is simply an extension of the fact that solutions to problems don’t come reliably.
#2504·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoI would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.
Then a bounty can go on indefinitely.
Extract criticism
Since I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479, I will make a new criticism. I think #2479 is unclear.
I would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.
A small downside is that a bounty can go on indefinitely, but that is simply an extension of the fact that solutions to problems don’t come reliably.
I would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.
#2479·Benjamin Davies, about 1 month agoThe counter-criticism moves the deadline forward again the same fixed amount.
Superseded by #2501.
#2476·Benjamin Davies, about 1 month agoThe timeframe to address the criticism should start counting down from the moment the criticism is made, rather than the original post. So it would be a continuous thing rather than a single deadline for everyone.
The OP could end the bounty if there are no outstanding criticisms and he no longer seeks a solution.
I suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?
#2313·Benjamin Davies, about 1 month agoMe, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.
Veritula emphasises making one point at a time for ease of criticism and discussion, which is useful in a forum but makes absorbing the totality of an idea a little more tedious compared to a quick glance at an encyclopedia article. (It is possible I have misunderstood some aspect of Veritula here.)
As much as I dislike LLMs, I’m thinking of using them to show summaries of discussions at the top of the page. Summaries would reflect ideas without pending criticisms.
#2471·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoI’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline.
But then bad actors could always submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to avoid paying.
I’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline.
#2318·Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month agoUsing my true name here causes me to take more care in what I write. I’m not hiding behind an identity I can discard.
Some people – and I don’t know if this includes you or not – are overly worried about getting embarrassed or making silly mistakes.
There are some exceptions where reputation needs to be taken very seriously, but I think the general view to take in this matter is that no one cares. Think of the deepest embarrassment you’ve ever felt – and then try to replace that feeling with how others felt about your situation.
Like, if you’re on stage playing the guitar in front of hundreds of people, and you hit the wrong note, you may feel embarrassed. But many people didn’t even notice. And those who did probably didn’t care nearly as much about the mistake as you did.
#2242·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoThose run the risk of turning Veritula into yet another social network like Reddit or messenger like Telegram.
Not if I do reactions on a per-paragraph basis. I think that’s a new feature none of those sites have.
#2464·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoThen what does somebody do who wants to react to an idea as a whole? Do they react to the last paragraph?
The way I picture it, as you hover over different paragraphs, a reaction button appears and moves between paragraphs. So it would always be clear that reactions are on specific paragraphs. The user would pick whatever paragraph they most wish to react to.
Then what does somebody do who wants to react to an idea as a whole? Do they react to the last paragraph?
#2461·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoIt isn’t clear what would happen during a revision. A paragraph might be changed or deleted. Too complicated.
For reactions to paragraphs, at least you could tell if the content someone reacted to has changed, and only then remove the reaction.
#2461·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoIt isn’t clear what would happen during a revision. A paragraph might be changed or deleted. Too complicated.
But presumably, the same is true for reactions to ideas as a whole. Reactions would have to be removed for revisions.