Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
#2169·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoVeritula should have some way to indicate agreement; some way to indicate that a particular thread of a discussion is resolved, at least for the time being.
The Effective Altruism forum has an interesting way to react to posts.
There’s an ‘Agree’ button and a ‘Disagree’ button. Those are apparently anonymous. Then separately, there’s a button to ‘Add a reaction’ of either ‘Heart’, ‘Helpful’, ‘Insightful’, ‘Changed my mind’, or ‘Made me laugh’. And those are apparently not anonymous.
I wonder why they chose to make some reactions anonymous but not others. I don’t think I’d want a ‘Heart’ or ‘Made me laugh’ button, they seem too social-network-y. Also, ‘Heart’ seems like a duplicate of ‘Agree’. But ‘Insightful’ and ‘Changed my mind’ seem epistemologically relevant. Maybe ‘Helpful’, too.
If I did decide to go with ‘Agree’ and ‘Disagree’ buttons, I wouldn’t make them anonymous, though.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the change.
#3115·Dennis HackethalOP revised 14 days agoThe activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.
On second thought, the reason for the privacy change may well be related to the reason for any changes to the title or about section, so doing it in the same notification might actually be clearer for users.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the activity.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.
#3110·Dennis HackethalOP revised 14 days agoThe activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the activity.
A change to the privacy setting is notable enough that it requires a dedicated notification independent of any changes to a discussion title or about section.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the activity.
#3108·Dennis HackethalOP, 14 days agoHow would you notify participants of changes to the privacy setting?
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants.
#2728·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoFeature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see. This could be a paid feature; $2 per discussion, say.
How would you notify participants of changes to the privacy setting?
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, 15 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, 15 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, 15 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, 15 days agoWhat if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?
Those could be deleted when the user is removed.
#3072·Dennis HackethalOP, 16 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, 16 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, 16 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, 16 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, 16 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, 16 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.