Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
#3431·Dennis HackethalOP, 15 days agoThe bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.
Couldn’t I re-authorize the card?
#2524·Dennis HackethalOP revised 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. Each counter-criticism could reset the deadline to give everyone ample time to respond.
The bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.
#3424·Dennis HackethalOP, 15 days agoRather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.
But that would mean that the first criticism receives a payout at the same time the last criticism receives a payout. That creates an incentive to ignore new bounties in favor of older ones.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether contributions are still worth making.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
#3423·Dennis HackethalOP, 15 days agoThat could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
#2811·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoFeature 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.
Rather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.
#3422·Dennis HackethalOP, 15 days agoBut that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.
That could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.
#3421·Dennis HackethalOP, 15 days agoThe initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per unproblematic criticism.
For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.
But that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.
#2811·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoFeature 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.
The initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per unproblematic criticism.
For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.
Idea: voice spaces, like Twitter spaces, except an AI generates a transcript and automatically turns it into a discussion tree, with criticism chains and all.
#3417·Erik Orrje, 16 days agoNo worries :-). Yeah, this is the part that confuses me about correspondence:
Which fields (apart from science) have "facts", and which consist merely of useful/adapted knowledge?
For instance, are there musical facts, economic facts, aesthetic facts, etc?
I think of it in terms of error correction: all fields where progress is possible allow us to identify and correct errors.
Empirical fields use facts. In empirical fields, error identification involves finding a discrepancy between theories and observation.
I’d consider aesthetics and economics at least partly empirical since you can make testable predictions. You can test an economic policy, for example, and see whether its predictions match (correspond to) outcomes. In music, things can sound unpleasant.
#3409·Dennis HackethalOP, 18 days agoBenjamin suggests making it clearer that you can use Veritula by yourself.
Done, see #3413.
I don’t know anyone on Veritula. Can I still join?
Yes! Start by chiming in on one of the existing discussions or creating a new discussion. People will likely contribute.
If you have a topic you’d rather discuss in private, with a select few, make your discussion private. No one except the people you invite and admins will see it.
You can even have productive discussions by yourself. Not sure what to make for dinner? Want to move but not sure where? Start a discussion, submit some ideas, criticisms, and counter-criticisms, and see which ideas remain without any pending criticisms.
You’ll gain clarity to make rational decisions.
Benjamin suggests making it clearer that you can use Veritula by yourself.
#2421·Erik Orrje revised 2 months agoThanks. Do you think the aim in abstract fields (such as mathematics) is correspondence as well? (As Deutsch seems to argue with the idea of perfect propositions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-opI-jghs).
Sorry for the late reply. I don’t know. I don’t think the aim of math is correspondence to physical facts like in science. But maybe it’s correspondence to mathematical facts.
#3227·Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month agoWhile Nevada offers 0% State Income Tax, residents still pay Federal Income Tax. The United States enforces Citizenship-Based Taxation (CBT). You are subject to federal tax on worldwide income and invasive reporting (FATCA), regardless of residency.
Since this criticism (having to pay federal income tax) is true of any US state, I wouldn’t hold it against Nevada specifically unless you wish to rule out the US as a whole.