Activity
Use friendly IDs for ideas? A ‘mixture’ where URLs say '/ideas/123-first-30-or-so-chars-of-idea-here'.
#1761·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoFriendly IDs for discussions would be nice. With automatic redirects for numeric ID from legacy links.
Done as of e6a90e5.
Friendly IDs for discussions would be nice. With automatic redirects for numeric ID from legacy links.
All emails have unsubscribe links, but people shouldn’t be able to unsubscribe from system emails like password resets.
#1753·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoI should revisit this now that I have email infrastructure in place.
Done as of 9c14b22.
#1755·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoNewly added comments keep animating when hidden and then unhidden.
Fixed as of 985430e.
Newly added comments keep animating when hidden and then unhidden.
#1752·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoSee #595. The form for new ideas is pushed to the very bottom of the discussion page. For long discussion, that means users won’t know where to submit new ideas.
Duplicate of #453.
#1136·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 months agoWorkaround: have users email me for password reset for now. Re-evaluate when I have enough users to merit additional infrastructure for sending emails.
I should revisit this now that I have email infrastructure in place.
See #595. The form for new ideas is pushed to the very bottom of the discussion page. For long discussion, that means users won’t know where to submit new ideas.
#1749·Dennis HackethalOP revised 2 months agoEach activity should have a distinct HTML title. The browser history and search results in search engines all look the same…
Done as of 7ef69da.
Each activity should have an HTML title. The browser history and search results in search engines all look the same…
Each activity should have a distinct HTML title. The browser history and search results in search engines all look the same…
Each activity should have an HTML title. The browser history and search results in search engines all look the same…
#417·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoThere’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.
Fixed as of b555677.
Sure, philosophers and pedants do. But typically people use the word "know" in situations well short of being absolutely sure.
Sure, philosophers and pedants do. But typically people use the word "know" in situations well short of being absolutely sure.
Fix typo
If we use the correspondance theory of truth, then truth consists of explanations that correspond "perfectly" to reality. In that sense all our statements are false: we don't have those explanations that perfectly correspond, all our actual statements are approximations, or deductions from approximations (1+1=2 is a deduction from a set of explanations, but that set is not entirely true - since the set is inconsistent and incomplete)
If we use the correspondence theory of truth, then truth consists of explanations that correspond "perfectly" to reality. In that sense all our statements are false: we don't have those explanations that perfectly correspond, all our actual statements are approximations, or deductions from approximations (1+1=2 is a deduction from a set of explanations, but that set is not entirely true - since the set is inconsistent and incomplete)
#1582·Bart Vanderhaegen, 5 months agoIf we use the correspondance theory of truth, then truth consists of explanations that correspond "perfectly" to reality. In that sense all our statements are false: we don't have those explanations that perfectly correspond, all our actual statements are approximations, or deductions from approximations (1+1=2 is a deduction from a set of explanations, but that set is not entirely true - since the set is inconsistent and incomplete)
correspondance
typo
Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be outstanding, it can’t have any outstanding criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.
def criticized? idea
outstanding_criticisms(idea).any?
end
def outstanding_criticisms idea
criticisms(idea).filter { |c| outstanding_criticisms(c).none? }
end
def criticisms idea
children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end
This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.
#1597·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoAvoid duplicate criticisms during revisions
When revising a criticism, check the box that says “Supersedes previous version?”. This will automatically ‘neutralize’ the older version to avoid counting a criticism twice.
As a convenience, this checkbox is now checked automatically for criticisms.
What does “battle tested” mean?
One of @edwin-de-wit’s ideas recently got the blue label that says “battle tested” – well done, Edwin! – so he asked me what it means.
It means that the idea has at least three criticisms, all of which have been addressed.
The label is awarded automatically. It’s a tentative indicator of quality. Battle-tested ideas generally contain more knowledge than non-battle-tested ones.
When there are two conflicting ideas, each with no outstanding criticisms, go with the (more) battle-tested one. This methodology maps onto Popper’s notion of a critical preference.
The label is not an indicator of an idea’s future success, nor should it be considered a justification of an idea.
You can see all battle-tested ideas currently on Veritula on this page. Those are all the best, most knowledge-dense ideas on this site.
#1721·Edwin de WitOP, 3 months agoI’ve added a comment on #1704 to clarify my point. I don’t think my English is the issue here. If/where we disagree, it’s more likely due to a gap in mutual understanding or an error in the substance of my knowledge.
Your new comment notwithstanding, I invite you to be more critical of your English. I’ve pointed out several issues already (which, to your credit, you did fix), and you’ve since made more mistakes (eg see #1729, and in a recent DM you wrote “criticizems”). A typo of that magnitude plausibly indicates deeper issues.
Again, I don’t mean to get too personal here – forgive me if that’s how it comes across.