Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
#2855·Benjamin Davies, 2 days agoI just realised that it is possible to publish a top-level idea as a 'criticism' in a discussion, in the way I have advocated an article would be criticisable. I am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion. @dennis-hackethal may you please explain this?
I am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion.
Top-level criticisms don’t criticize the discussion as a whole. They’re just criticisms of something. Anything. It depends on context.
For example, top-level criticisms in the Veritula – Meta discussion are often bug reports. So they’re criticisms of Veritula.
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
their own personal
Double (triple?) tautology
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
is largely enabled to
can
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
each individual
I see several opportunities for simplification of language in this idea. The quote above is one of them. You could instead say ‘everyone’ or ‘people’.
Doesn’t sound as serious/legitimate as I’d like in this context.
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
The Open Society
This is the political philosophy …
I haven’t read that book but it seems weird to call a society a philosophy. You sure that’s what Popper means?
#2816·Benjamin Davies revised 3 days agoThe user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
This is how relating discussions works currently. For instance, if I start a discussion on Bitcoin, I might want to connect it to the existing discussion on Zcash. At present, the only way to achieve this is by adding a link to the Zcash discussion within my new Bitcoin discussion.
I suspect you would agree with me that this approach to how discussions interact isn’t really an issue. I also think it wouldn’t be an issue for independently published ideas, for the same reasons.
Note: This has lead me to the idea that links within Veritula could be bidirectional. Each idea could have an option to display all other ideas that refer to it. I will submit this as a top-level idea in this thread.
lead
led
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.
#2816·Benjamin Davies revised 3 days agoThe user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
This is how relating discussions works currently. For instance, if I start a discussion on Bitcoin, I might want to connect it to the existing discussion on Zcash. At present, the only way to achieve this is by adding a link to the Zcash discussion within my new Bitcoin discussion.
I suspect you would agree with me that this approach to how discussions interact isn’t really an issue. I also think it wouldn’t be an issue for independently published ideas, for the same reasons.
Note: This has lead me to the idea that links within Veritula could be bidirectional. Each idea could have an option to display all other ideas that refer to it. I will submit this as a top-level idea in this thread.
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.
You may want to hit the bell icon for each discussion and at the top of the page listing all discussions. Then you’ll be notified of every activity on existing discussions, and of new discussions.
That’s what notifications are for. You’d want to hit the bell icon for each discussion and at the top of the page listing all discussions. Then you’ll be notified of every activity on existing discussions, and of new discussions. The notification page keeps track of read vs unread notifications.
#2853·Benjamin Davies, 3 days agoI noticed that the idea count of some discussions in the Discussions page seem to be inaccurate. In the Keeping Tidy discussion, I count 13 ideas, including revisions, while the listing for it on Discussions says it contains 17.
You forgot to count comments on older versions of ideas.
#2829·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 days agoThe Open Society
This is the political philosophy of Critical Rationalism, detailed by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society is one in which each individual is largely enabled to make their own personal decisions, as opposed to a tribal or collectivist society. It replaces the justificationist political question, "Who should rule?", with the fallibilist question: "How can we structure our institutions so that we can remove bad rulers and bad policies without violence?". In this view, democracy is not "rule by the people" (an essentialist definition) but is valued as the only known institutional mechanism for error-correction and leadership change without bloodshed.
Broken links
#2823·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 days agoPolitical Holism
Synonymous with large-scale social engineering, this is the political program that follows from Historicism. It is the attempt to remodel an entire society from a central blueprint, based on a historicist prophecy of an "ideal" state. Popper argued this program is both violent and irrational. It is violent because it requires the suppression of all dissent to enact the central plan, and it is irrational because when an entire system is changed at once, it becomes impossible to trace the consequences of any single action, making it impossible to learn from mistakes.
Broken link
#2833·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 days agoI notice that I tend to work harder at being tidy when I am well fed, or have consumed dopaminergic substances like nicotine.
A former coworker told me he sometimes struggled with self-doubt when he was in college. Then he noticed that the self-doubt would appear when he hadn’t eaten in a while. It consistently disappeared after meals.
#2840·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 days agoI think part of the problem is that I don’t have a dedicated final place where everything lives. I think creating and designating these spaces would go a long way, as I wouldn’t need to work out a place to put every item each time.
Related to that, here’s a tip I like to follow. Anytime you go to a new place, like a hotel room or an AirBnB, designate a spot for your keys and valuables. Do this immediately upon arrival. After that, put those things there consistently. Never put them anywhere else. That should make it much harder to lose your valuables while traveling.
#2834·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 days agoThis leads me to believe that my untidiness may have to do with physiological lethargy, and that increasing availability of biological energy may contribute to a solution it.
… may contribute to a solution it.
Typo/grammar
A Life Guided by Reason
In #2281, I explain how Veritula helps you make rational decisions – in other words, how to live rationally, ie, a life guided by reason. (I use the words ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ synonymously. The same goes for ‘unreason’ and ‘irrationality’.)
A life guided by reason defies the dominant, Kantian philosophy of our age. Ayn Rand summarized that philosophy as, “Be rational, except when you don’t feel like it.”1 In other words, it says to mix reason and unreason; to stray from rationality arbitrarily; to be rational only sometimes. It claims that there is a necessary clash between reason and emotion. It is an attack on reason, an attempt to do the impossible – and it leads to dissatisfaction with yourself and conflict with others.
If you are rational only sometimes, if you stray from rationality arbitrarily, then you are irrational. There is no third option. This conclusion can be proven easily: if you tried to stray from rationality non-arbitrarily, ie, if you tried to come up with a considered argument for straying from rationality, you could only do so by following the steps in #2281. And those steps are the application of rationality again.
So it’s impossible to stray from rationality rationally. There is no gray area between reason and unreason. Rationality has an all-or-nothing character. This does not mean that reason has to snuff out all emotion. On the contrary: there is no necessary clash between rationality on the one hand and emotion on the other. Rationality means finding unanimous consent between emotion, explicit thought, inexplicit thought, and any other kind of idea.
If you follow the steps in #2281 consistently, then you are always rational. A life worth living is one guided exclusively by reason. Consistent application of rationality may be difficult at first, but with practice, it will get easier. Master it, and you will have a fighting chance of becoming what David Deutsch calls a beginning of infinity.
Ayn Rand. Philosophy: Who Needs It. ‘From the Horse’s Mouth’ (p. 110). 1975. Kindle Edition. As quoted previously.
What if somebody wanted to post something related that isn’t a comment or criticism? Where/how would they do that?
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.
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.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
#2736·Benjamin Davies revised 6 days agoIdea: ‘Reason Arena’, ‘RA’
I like something with ‘Arena’ because it would imply action, some ideas winning out over others, and has a Darwinian aspect to it. Our best ideas are the tentative champions in the arena of ideas, waiting for the next challenger.
I have largely inexplicit criticisms of the word ‘arena’ in this context, but one that bubbled up to the explicit level is that the word reminds me of Pokemon for some reason 😅
#2800·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 days agoIn Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black gap underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear; seems to be a Brave quirk.
This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the
htmlelement, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.
6623c22 implements #2802 and there is no difference in background between footer and page body anymore.
Maybe I’ll figure out the Brave quirk more generally someday, but it’s not noticeably anymore.
#2775·Benjamin Davies, 4 days agoIf Veritula did implement articles, the first thing I’d want is the ability to criticize them; to submit deeply nested counter-criticisms; and to render a label showing how many pending criticisms an article has, calculated based on criticism chains.
I agree, and I think here you have inadvertently pointed at a key difference between discussions and articles. In terms of implementation, articles would be a near clone of discussions, except that the articles themselves can be criticised by users, including all the functionality that articles being criticisable may one day come with, like entire articles going dormant if they don’t answer criticisms within a certain period.
A couple of examples: If I wanted to keep and share information on Karl Popper, it would be a lot more intuitive to produce an article on him in encyclopedia style—where I can present information in a hierarchy, rather than creating a discussion and then making each detail about him a top-level idea, which is more chaotic. The same would be true if I wanted to make articles on CR terms—this doesn’t seem very natural to do in a Veritula discussion, but would be very natural in a series of Veritula articles, one for each term.
It also favours this articles idea that implementing it would be fairly straightforward, due to how much could be carried over from the discussions implementation. It makes it low cost to try.
If I wanted to keep and share information on Karl Popper, it would be a lot more intuitive to produce an article on him in encyclopedia style—where I can present information in a hierarchy, rather than creating a discussion and then making each detail about him a top-level idea, which is more chaotic.
You already don’t have to do divvy it up like that. Nothing is stopping you from creating a discussion called ‘Karl Popper’ and then posting a single, long-form, top-level idea where you present information in a hierarchy.
#2753·Benjamin Davies revised 6 days agoIdea: Veritula Articles
Currently, Veritula is a discussion website. I believe it could one day do what Wikipedia and Grokipedia do, but better.
A step towards that would be enabling users to produce ‘articles’ or something similar.
An ‘Articles’ tab would be distinct from the ‘Discussions’ tab, featuring explanatory documents similar to encyclopedia entries, and perhaps also blogpost-like content.
Articles focus on distilling the good ideas created/discovered in the discussions that occur on Veritula.
Forget the term ‘article’ for a second. It sounds like you want the ability to post ideas without having to associate them with a discussion, is that right?
#2783·Benjamin Davies revised 4 days agoThese are not standalone pages in the sense that a Wikipedia page is a standalone page.
Articles would have the same ‘page’ status as the discussion pages that currently exist. (Forgive my lack of technical vocabulary.)
A possible counter-factual that may or may not be relevant to the goals of Veritula: An article with title metadata ‘Boron’ would presumably be much more search engine-friendly than a top-level ideas for Boron where the metadata title is ‘#[ID]’ and the actual desired title is merely included as the first line of the body text, while it is effectively a subpage of a discussion of another name.
‘page’ status
What is a page status? How did you determine that an idea’s page status is not the same as a Wikipedia article’s?