Dennis Hackethal
@dennis.hackethal·Joined Jun 2024·Ideas
Founder Veritula. Author. Software engineer. I study the mind and build tools for thinkers. Ex Apple. Translator of The Beginning of Infinity.
#3115·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months 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 4 months 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, 4 months 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 4 months 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
#3087·Benjamin Davies, 4 months 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, 4 months 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, 4 months 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, 4 months agoWhat if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?
Those could be deleted when the user is removed.
#3072·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months 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, 4 months 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, 4 months 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, 4 months 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, 4 months 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, 4 months 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.
#3074·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoThey could keep read-only access to the discussion but can’t add new ideas or change existing ideas.
Maybe you remove them because you don’t even want them to be able to see anything.
#3073·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoThey could keep access to their own ideas but not see others’.
There’d probably be a bunch of edge cases with this approach. For example, others would still be able to comment on those ideas, and the comments would have to be hidden from OPs. Which begs the question of how that impacts the displayed criticism count… And so on.
If you later realize that adding someone was a mistake, you should be able to correct that mistake.