Dennis Hackethal

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)
• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)
• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas
• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea
• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

Dirk Meulenbelt the concept of revising someone else’s idea is not intuitive.

Fixed as of b5d435e.

There’s a bug where right-clicking in a form to paste text doesn’t result in the preview updating.

Done as of a02e6c4, see eg this activity.

Would be neat linking to a specific activity.

Done as of cc8e3e9. It now says ‘x unchanged lines collapsed’.

Diffs should omit unchanged lines. Maybe just leave up to three lines around changed content for context – that’s how git does it.

Now that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he cannot rationally hold.

There’s a bug where hovering over a link in the markdown preview removes the form and all typed text. Hovering over a link should have no effect on the form.

Done as of 8d3eed0, see eg the version history of #414.

Since the diff processes the text as a single line, the diff information is always going to say either @@ -0,0 +1 @@ (for the first version) or @@ -1 +1 @@ (for every subsequent version). Meaning it provides no real information. So I might as well remove that part.

Done as of b3c06c4, see eg my profile.

There should be user profiles.

I also don't mind the bulk criticism.

Even if the person submitting an idea doesn’t mind bulk criticism, others still have a harder time discerning which parts of the idea are true/salvageable and which should be discarded. Meaning error correction is harder.

It helps when critics quote which part they’re criticizing, like I’m doing above, but the responsibility still lies with the original poster.

I agree many people would make the same error and that it’s a good idea to see how things play out when it does happen. There’s going to be a learning curve for new users. I will probably just point it out every time. I may even implement a feature where ‘AI’ analyzes text and helpfully points out to users that they’re about to submit multiple claims at once.

[W]e are not on our deathbed, and hence have the luxury of time to consider our trade.

But meat eaters contribute to the death of animals every day, so if animals were sentient there would be more urgency to apply the wager, not less. (I’ll preemptively add that, although meat eaters die every day, too, each one of them is complicit in what would be the murder of several innocent animals, so there’d still be more urgency.)

I see that, according to Wikipedia, Pascal’s detractors criticized the wager for not addressing “the problem of which religion and which God should be worshipped”, but I don’t see how that is relevant here. Maybe there are some differences between how you apply the wager and how Pascal applied it, but the core logic is the same and equally invalid.