Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
#2494·Erik OrrjeOP, 2 months 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, 2 months 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 2 months 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, 2 months agoThe counter-criticism moves the deadline forward again the same fixed amount.
Superseded by #2501.
#2476·Benjamin Davies, 2 months 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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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, 2 months 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.
It isn’t clear what would happen during a revision. A paragraph might be changed or deleted. Too complicated.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.
#2166·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoReactions can be ambiguous. It wouldn’t always be clear which part of an idea someone is reacting to.
I could implement reactions on a per-paragraph basis.
There’s value in others being able to react as well. Maybe an idea affects them in some way or they want to voice support.
#2316·Benjamin DaviesOP, 2 months ago@dennis-hackethal Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.
Another reason I want people to use their true names is that I want Veritula to be a place for serious intellectuals, not yet another social network where people just screw around. Part of being a serious intellectual is public advocacy of one’s ideas and public updates on changed positions.
#2316·Benjamin DaviesOP, 2 months ago@dennis-hackethal Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.
When people use their true names, I expect higher quality contributions, less rudeness, fewer trolls, that kind of thing. More accountability generally means higher quality.
#2319·Benjamin DaviesOP, 2 months agoThis may make it harder for me to discuss sensitive topics (e.g. navigating personal relationships, health issues, etc.) since it may reveal things to people who know me personally, things that I may wish to keep to myself, that I would only discuss online behind a pseudonym.
One feature I have planned is private discussions that only you and people you invite can see.
The word ‘therefore’ in this context means that lack of certainty is the reason error correction is the means by which knowledge is created. I’m not sure that’s the reason.
And it’s not actually clear whether ‘therefore’ refers to the part “This means that we can't be certain about anything” or to “all knowledge contains errors.”
You can avoid all of these issues by simply removing the word ‘therefore’. Simpler.