Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
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
#3087·Benjamin Davies, 8 days agoPlease add a ‘first, previous, next, last’ navigation thing to the top of the activity feed page and similar pages. Currently I need to scroll to the bottom to go to a different page.
Good call. I made the pagination ‘sticky’ as of 1e7a85d. Archiving this but let me know if something isn’t working right.
#3097·Benjamin DaviesOP, 8 days agoI am stuck on the subject of self-discipline.
It seems important to be able to get things done, even when we aren’t in the mood for it (basic chores, for example).
But this conflicts with CR ideas to do with self-coercion.
Yeah I’d consider discipline irrational because it means one part of you coerces another.
Having said that, there could be value in learning how to deal productively with situations where you cannot avoid coercion. Like the government forcing you to do your taxes, which you will only do if you translate that external coercion into internal coercion. Nobody else can really coerce you, only you can coerce yourself. It would be nice to do this productively and also in a way that doesn’t practice/internalize self-coercion. And it should be rare. I don’t think basic chores qualify.
#3101·Dennis HackethalOP, 7 days agoIf the discussion owner accidentally removes someone and then adds them back right away, it sucks if all the associated records are still gone.
In later implementations, I could maybe implement a ‘soft’ delete or grace period. Or I could keep the associated records and rely on authorization rules to prevent access. But as of right now, that’s a premature consideration.
If the discussion owner accidentally removes someone and then adds them back right away, it sucks if all the associated records are still gone.
#3099·Dennis HackethalOP, 7 days agoWhat if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?
Those could be deleted when the user is removed.
#3072·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoThere could be hard cutoff: they lose access to everything, including their own ideas in that discussion.
What if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?
Have you seen: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/core-objectivist-values
Might have some more virtues to include.
#3079·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoBut that sucks. Maybe someone works hard and submits a bunch of ideas only to lose access to them all.
This functionality is pretty standard across apps. You can be removed from Discord servers, Telegram channels, etc without warning or reason at any time. People generally know and accept this. If they still put in effort, that’s on them.
#3081·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoBut then invitees might not put as much effort into those discussions.
That depends on a bunch of factors, including their relationship with the discussion owner, into which Veritula has no visibility.
#3072·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoThere could be hard cutoff: they lose access to everything, including their own ideas in that discussion.
But then invitees might not put as much effort into those discussions.
#3079·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoBut that sucks. Maybe someone works hard and submits a bunch of ideas only to lose access to them all.
That risk could be clearly communicated in the UI.
#3072·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoThere could be hard cutoff: they lose access to everything, including their own ideas in that discussion.
But that sucks. Maybe someone works hard and submits a bunch of ideas only to lose access to them all.
#3074·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoThey could keep read-only access to the discussion but can’t add new ideas or change existing ideas.
Maybe you remove them because you don’t even want them to be able to see anything.
There’d probably be a bunch of edge cases with this approach. For example, others would still be able to comment on those ideas, and the comments would have to be hidden from OPs. Which begs the question of how that impacts the displayed criticism count… And so on.
If you later realize that adding someone was a mistake, you should be able to correct that mistake.
#3071·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoWhat happens if you add a user to a private discussion, they submit a bunch of ideas, and then you remove them?
Permanent access: once added, you can’t remove them.
#3071·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoWhat happens if you add a user to a private discussion, they submit a bunch of ideas, and then you remove them?
They could keep read-only access to the discussion but can’t add new ideas or change existing ideas.
#3071·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoWhat happens if you add a user to a private discussion, they submit a bunch of ideas, and then you remove them?
They could keep access to their own ideas but not see others’.
#3071·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 days agoWhat happens if you add a user to a private discussion, they submit a bunch of ideas, and then you remove them?
There could be hard cutoff: they lose access to everything, including their own ideas in that discussion.
#2728·Dennis HackethalOP revised 24 days agoFeature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see. This could be a paid feature; $2 per discussion, say.
What happens if you add a user to a private discussion, they submit a bunch of ideas, and then you remove them?
My critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
He says one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change while still explaining what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
My critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
My critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
He says people should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to do that.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable
My critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.
He says one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change while still explaining what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.
A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.
So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.
You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable