Ayn Rand on why middle-of-the-roaders can be worse than outright opponents:

[Page 1]
August 21, 1946

Mrs. Rose Wilder Lane
Route 4, Box 42
Danbury, Connecticut

[…]

Now to your second question: “Do those almost with us do more harm than 100% enemies?” I don’t think this can be answered

[Page 2]
Page 2 Mrs. Rose Wilder Lane August 21, 1946

with a flat “yes” or “no”, because the “almost” is such a wide term and can cover so many different attitudes. I think each particular case has to be judged on his own performance, but there is one general rule to observe: those who are with us, but merely do not go far enough, yet do not serve the opposite cause in any way, are the ones who do us some good and who are worth educating. Those who agree with us in some respects, yet preach contradictory ideas at the same time, are definitely more harmful than the 100% enemies. The standard of judgement here has to be the man’s attitude toward basic principles. If he shares our basic principles, but goes off on lesser details in the application of these principles, he is worth educating and having as an ally. If his “almost” consists of sharing some of the basic principles of collectivism, then we ought to run from him faster than from an out-and-out Communist.

As an example of the kind of “almost” I would tolerate, I’d name Ludwig von Mises. His book, “Omnipotent Government”, had some bad flaws, in that he attempted to divorce economics from morality, which is impossible; but with the exception of his last chapter, which simply didn’t make sense, his book was good, and did not betray our cause. The flaws in his argument merely weakened his own effectiveness, but did not help the other side.

As an example of our most pernicious enemy, I would name Hayek.[**] That one is real poison. Yes, I think he does more harm than Stuart Chase. I think Wendell Willkie did more to destroy the Republican Party than did Roosevelt. I think Willkie and Eric Johnston have done more for the cause of Communism than Earl Browder and The Daily Worker. Observe the Communist Party technique, which asks their most effective propagandists to be what is known as “tactical non-members”. That is, they must not be Communists, but pose as “middle-of-the-roaders” in the eyes of the public. The Communists know that such propagandists are much more deadly to the cause of Capitalism in that “middle-of-the-road” pretense.

Personally, I feel sick whenever I come up against a compromising conservative. But my attitude is this: if the man compromises because of ignorance, I consider him worth enlightening. If he compromises because of moral cowardice (which is the reason in most cases), I don’t want to talk to him, I don’t want him on my side, and I don’t think he is worth converting.

As to George Peck, I don’t know enough about him to be able to tell whether he is worth educating or not. I have just received a letter from him in answer to mine. It is a very nice letter, in that he tries to answer criticism honestly, but I am appalled by his mental confusion. He maintains, for instance, that Hitler is worse than Stalin. I don’t know by what possible standard one can establish degrees of evil as between dictators representing exactly the same

[Page 3]
Page 3 Mrs. Rose Wilder Lane August 21, 1946

principle. I am afraid that George Peck means well, but has not given our cause a serious study. Perhaps, he is worth educating. But stay away from Hayek, if you want my opinion; he is worse than hopeless.

Now, am I a good correspondent?

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ayn Rand

p.s.
I had just finished this letter to you, when, strangely enough, I received an appalling answer to the question you asked me—a final proof that our “almost” friends are our worst enemies. It was the worst shock in all my experience with political reading. I received the Economic Council Letter of August 15th. (Incidentally, I subscribed to that Letter mainly in order to get your book reviews.) And I read that Merwin K. Hart, a defender of freedom and Americanism, is advocating a death penalty for a political offense.

I am actually too numb at the moment to know what to say. I don’t have to explain to you that once such a principle is accepted, it would mean the literal, physical end of Americans; nor to ask you to guess who would be the first people executed under such a law; nor to remind you that the crucial steps on the road to dictatorship, the laws giving government totalitarian powers, were initiated by Republicans—such as the draft bill, or the attempt to pass a national serfdom act for compulsory labor.

I know that you know all that. What I wonder is: is it in your spiritual power to discuss this with Hart? If you can, if you have arguments that would reach him—please do it. I confess I’m helpless in such an instance. It’s too monstrous.

[…]

**F. A. Hayek, who shared the 1947 Nobel Prize in Economics. For AR’s marginal comments on Hayek’s best-known work, The Road to Serfdom, see Mayhew ed., Ayn Rand’s Marginalia, pp. 145–60. 

In her August 24, 1946, response, Lane wrote, “That Council Letter gave me the same shock…. I can take it up with Hart and I shall.”

Source

Sometimes postponement is impossible due to external factors, say. But maybe you can create a new option in time.

Even if you can’t create a completely new option, you could create an option saying, ‘in this situation, I have to act, and I’m running out of time to come up with new ideas, so I’m deciding to do X because Y’. And then that option, as I just phrased it, may have no pending criticisms, in which case you can still act on it. So the rule of not acting on problematic ideas remains intact because ideas are discrete and immutable.

The way out of such conundrums as Podge described them is usually (always?) to create new options (see BoI ch. 13).

Podge wrote in the FoR book club:

[A]n institution that forbids action unless unanimity is reached seems not to function coherently. There are two possibilities. If postponement is uncontroversial, then no special rule is needed, since institutions for adjudicating between competing preferences are only operative when there is disagreement. If postponement itself is contested, then it’s not clear how this rule could be applied consistently, because not acting on x is itself a choice about which we are conflicted.

Alternatively, you could make an option "allow revisions by other users" in the new idea form that is off by default.

You could make an option "allow revisions by other users" in the new idea form that is off by default.

Maybe fun = profitable thought. Not in the sense of ‘thought that leads to good monetary decisions’. I mean it in the literal sense that there’s a kind of wealth being created inside your mind.

Maybe fun = profitable thinking. Not in the sense of ‘thoughts that lead to good monetary decisions’. I mean it in the literal sense that there’s wealth being created inside your mind.

Maybe fun = profitable thinking.

Idea: ability to lock an idea to prevent edits. If you submit the first version, you get to lock the idea. Useful especially on your own profile that you might use as more of a blog and don’t necessarily want others changing your ideas.

web-haptics: Haptic Feedback Finally Comes to iOS Safari

lochie just published a package bringing haptic feedback to the web on iOS: web-haptics. I spent four years at Apple working mostly on UIs, so I pay close attention to design and UX. In terms of presentation, use case, and attention to detail, this package comes as close to perfect as I’ve seen.

The problem

On Android, haptics have been available through navigator.vibrate(), but iOS does not support this API. There is a workaround, though – the input element with the switch attribute:

1

<input type="checkbox" switch>

See this switch input in action here. On iOS, the input renders not as a regular checkbox but as a switch that can be toggled on or off:

Open the link on your iPhone, tap the switch, and you’ll feel haptic feedback. As far as I know, this is currently the only known practical workaround to trigger haptic feedback on the web in iOS.

Implementation

lochie cleverly bases his package on this single workaround and pushes it to its limits. The key lines are here, creating a switch input on the fly:

1
2
3

javascript

const hapticCheckbox = document.createElement("input");
hapticCheckbox.type = "checkbox";
hapticCheckbox.setAttribute("switch", "");

The package also creates an associated label and clicks it to trigger haptic feedback on the connected input:

1

javascript

this.hapticLabel.click();

(My understanding is that iOS will not trigger the haptic feedback when the input is programmatically clicked – so the ‘workaround within the workaround’ is to click the associated label instead.)

Custom haptics (!)

But web-haptics can do more than just trigger a single haptic ‘pulse’. The trigger function lets you pass in your own patterns with pulses of different duration and intensity, and even delays.

Want a simple success haptic? Trigger two pulses, as shown on the package homepage:

1
2
3
4

javascript

trigger([
  { duration: 30 },
  { delay: 60, duration: 40, intensity: 1 },
])

Or simply call trigger('success') as a shortcut.

Here’s an error haptic I made based on Apple’s human interface guidelines:

1
2
3
4
5
6

trigger([
  { duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 40, intensity: 0.9 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 50, intensity: 0.6 },
])

lochie’s website even gives you an editor to make custom haptics. As you click and drag, both pulses and code update in real time. This experience is developer bliss:

Usage

Importing the package is easy. In Rails, for example:

1
2

# config/importmap.rb
pin "web-haptics", to: "https://esm.sh/web-haptics@0.0.6"

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

import { WebHaptics } from 'web-haptics';

// In a Stimulus controller somewhere
let haptics = new WebHaptics();
haptics.trigger('success'); // or 'error', 'warning', etc for built-in haptics
haptics.trigger([
  { duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
])

Pass a debug option to the constructor to hear clicks in development/on desktop:

1

new WebHaptics({ debug: true });

Again, this package comes as close to perfect as I’ve seen. In fact, I already use it on Veritula: as you type in a text field, an error haptic plays when you exceed the max length (#4473).

I highly recommend web-haptics by lochie.

web-haptics: Haptic Feedback Finally Comes to iOS Safari

lochie just published a package bringing haptic feedback to the web: web-haptics. I spent four years at Apple working mostly on UIs, so I pay close attention to design and UX. In terms of presentation, use case, and attention to detail, this package comes as close to perfect as I’ve seen.

The problem

On Android, haptics have been available through navigator.vibrate(), but iOS does not support this API. There is a workaround, though – the input element with the switch attribute:

1

<input type="checkbox" switch>

See this switch input in action here. On iOS, the input renders not as a regular checkbox but as a switch that can be toggled on or off:

Open the link on your iPhone, tap the switch, and you’ll feel haptic feedback. As far as I know, this is currently the only known practical workaround to trigger haptic feedback on the web in iOS.

Implementation

lochie cleverly bases his package on this single workaround and pushes it to its limits. The key lines are here, creating a switch input on the fly:

1
2
3

javascript

const hapticCheckbox = document.createElement("input");
hapticCheckbox.type = "checkbox";
hapticCheckbox.setAttribute("switch", "");

The package also creates an associated label and clicks it to trigger haptic feedback on the connected input:

1

javascript

this.hapticLabel.click();

(My understanding is that iOS will not trigger the haptic feedback when the input is programmatically clicked – so the ‘workaround within the workaround’ is to click the associated label instead.)

Custom haptics (!)

But web-haptics can do more than just trigger a single haptic ‘pulse’. The trigger function lets you pass in your own patterns with pulses of different duration and intensity, and even delays.

Want a simple success haptic? Trigger two pulses, as shown on the package homepage:

1
2
3
4

javascript

trigger([
  { duration: 30 },
  { delay: 60, duration: 40, intensity: 1 },
])

Or simply call trigger('success') as a shortcut.

Here’s an error haptic I made based on Apple’s human interface guidelines:

1
2
3
4
5
6

trigger([
  { duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 40, intensity: 0.9 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 50, intensity: 0.6 },
])

lochie’s website even gives you an editor to make custom haptics. As you click and drag, both pulses and code update in real time. This experience is developer bliss:

Usage

Importing the package is easy. In Rails, for example:

1
2

# config/importmap.rb
pin "web-haptics", to: "https://esm.sh/web-haptics@0.0.6"

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

import { WebHaptics } from 'web-haptics';

// In a Stimulus controller somewhere
let haptics = new WebHaptics();
haptics.trigger('success'); // or 'error', 'warning', etc for built-in haptics
haptics.trigger([
  { duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
])

Pass a debug option to the constructor to hear clicks in development/on desktop:

1

new WebHaptics({ debug: true });

Again, this package comes as close to perfect as I’ve seen. In fact, I already use it on Veritula: as you type in a text field, an error haptic plays when you exceed the max length (#4473).

I highly recommend web-haptics by lochie.

web-haptics: Haptic Feedback Finally Comes to iOS Safari

lochie just published a package bringing haptic feedback to the web: ‘web-haptics’. I spent four years at Apple working mostly on UIs, so I pay close attention to design and UX. In terms of presentation, use case, and attention to detail, this package comes as close to perfect as I’ve seen.

The problem

On Android, haptics have been available through navigator.vibrate(), but iOS does not support this API. There is a workaround, though – the input element with the switch attribute:

1

<input type="checkbox" switch>

See this switch input in action here. On iOS, the input renders not as a regular checkbox but as a switch that can be toggled on or off:

Open the link on your iPhone, tap the switch, and you’ll feel haptic feedback. As far as I know, this is currently the only known practical workaround to trigger haptic feedback on the web in iOS.

Implementation

lochie cleverly bases his package on this single workaround and pushes it to its limits. The key lines are here, creating a switch input on the fly:

1
2
3

javascript

const hapticCheckbox = document.createElement("input");
hapticCheckbox.type = "checkbox";
hapticCheckbox.setAttribute("switch", "");

The package also creates an associated label and clicks it to trigger haptic feedback on the connected input:

1

javascript

this.hapticLabel.click();

(My understanding is that iOS will not trigger the haptic feedback when the input is programmatically clicked – so the ‘workaround within the workaround’ is to click the associated label instead.)

Custom haptics (!)

But web-haptics can do more than just trigger a single haptic ‘pulse’. The trigger function lets you pass in your own patterns with pulses of different duration and intensity, and even delays.

Want a simple success haptic? Trigger two pulses, as shown on the package homepage:

1
2
3
4

javascript

trigger([
  { duration: 30 },
  { delay: 60, duration: 40, intensity: 1 },
])

Or simply call trigger('success') as a shortcut.

Here’s an error haptic I made based on Apple’s human interface guidelines:

1
2
3
4
5
6

trigger([
  { duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 40, intensity: 0.9 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 50, intensity: 0.6 },
])

lochie’s website even gives you an editor to make custom haptics. As you click and drag, both pulses and code update in real time. This experience is developer bliss:

Usage

Importing the package is easy. In Rails, for example:

1
2

# config/importmap.rb
pin "web-haptics", to: "https://esm.sh/web-haptics@0.0.6"

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

import { WebHaptics } from 'web-haptics';

// In a Stimulus controller somewhere
let haptics = new WebHaptics();
haptics.trigger('success'); // or 'error', 'warning', etc for built-in haptics
haptics.trigger([
  { duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
  { delay: 40, duration: 40, intensity: 0.7 },
])

Pass a debug option to the constructor to hear clicks in development/on desktop:

1

new WebHaptics({ debug: true });

Again, this package comes as close to perfect as I’ve seen. In fact, I already use it on Veritula: as you type in a text field, an error haptic plays when you exceed the max length (#4473).

I highly recommend web-haptics by lochie.

Users can now pick a custom @username.

I just changed mine from @dennis-hackethal* to @dennis.hackethal. (Period instead of hyphen.) Old profile links are automatically redirected. Old @mentions have an asterisk and explain the change on hover while linking to the updated URL.

@usernames used to be assigned automatically based on a user’s first and last name. Now, users can choose.

To change your @username, go to Settings.

Users can now pick a custom @username.

I just changed mine to @dennis.hackethal. (Period instead of hyphen.) Old profile links are automatically redirected. Old @mentions are automatically updated.

@usernames used to be assigned automatically based on a user’s first and last name. Now, users have more choice.

To change your @username, go to Settings.

5 Minute Creativity

TL;DR: When making a decision or working to solve a problem, spend 5 minutes (using a timer) just coming up with ideas. Managing your attention like this can supercharge your creativity.

A few days ago I was helping a friend flesh out an idea for an app that he is developing in his spare time. We came up with a new feature that we were both excited about, and we spent a few minutes going over how much more useful and fun the app was going to be with this new feature.

But in the spirit of philosopher Karl Popper, I asked my friend: "Is there anything wrong with this new feature idea?"

He spent about two seconds considering the question, before confidently answering "No!"

This took me by surprise. Somehow he had come to think that if a problem didn't jump out at him within the first two seconds of looking for problems, then for him the idea mustn't have any problems.*

I took some time later in the day to reflect on that moment. My first thought was about how irrational he was to have spent so little effort trying to poke holes in this new feature idea. After all, he was getting ready to spend hours of his valuable time bringing this new feature into reality. If he had just spent one minute thinking about what could be wrong with the new idea, and in that minute he discovered a fatal flaw in it, it might've saved him hundreds of minutes of wasted work over the next few weeks! Silly guy! Lucky he had me there to save him!

But then I thought about it some more, and realised that maybe I'm not actually that different to him. In many aspects of my daily life, I don't consciously give myself a meaningful amount of time to come up with new ideas or criticisms for the things I want to do. Many of my choices are kind of uncreative—I simply do the first thing that pops into my mind, in much the same way my friend decided there was nothing wrong with the new feature idea; because that was the first thing that popped into his mind.

I did some e-sleuthing around this thought and found On Creativity - The joys of 5 minute timers by Neel Nanda. It suggests literally using timers to make sure we spend meaningful time thinking about the things that matter. It might be worth reading if you identify at all with anything I have just said.

My favourite part of the article is this:

Set a 5 minute timer, and make a list of problems in your life - things that annoy you, things you want to work on, things that could be better. And then, go through that list, and cross off any you’re confident you’ve spent at least 5 minutes of focused time trying to solve. If you’re anything like me, you’ll have an embarrassingly long list left over. I’d be pretty curious about what happens if you try doing a 5 minute brainstorm for anything left.

I also found Nate Soares blogposts talking about using this approach (I’m guessing the Neel Nanda article was at least partly inspired by Nate Soares).

In 'Obvious advice', Nate Soares writes:

When you're about to make a big decision, pause, and ask yourself what obvious things a reasonable person would do before making this sort of decision. Would they spend a full five minutes (by the clock) brainstorming alternative options before settling on a decision? Would they consult with friends and advisors? Would they do some particular type of research?

Then, actually do the obvious things.

In 'Be a new homunculus', Nate Soares writes:

Notice the guilt, listen to the message it bears, and actually write down the behavioral pattern that you wish to change. Then spend five minutes (a full five minutes, by the clock) brainstorming ways that you might change the pattern and start retraining your mind.

I think if I dedicated 5 minutes each week to thinking about all the things I could do that week, I would come up with a lot of stuff. Some of those ideas would suck, but some of them would probably be a lot more useful and interesting than whatever I would’ve done otherwise that week if I hadn't spent 5 minutes exclusively thinking about it. I might even start using 5 minute timers each morning to decide what I want to do that day. Time to explore.

It's worth mentioning that 5 minutes is just a nice round number to get started with. Some problems merit more dedicated time, and others less. If you are considering using a smaller number of minutes, I urge you to keep in mind why it is you're doing this in the first place—you're intentionally giving yourself more time to think than you would give yourself naturally. This is about experimenting with a new thinking pattern, so consider allowing yourself to feel some amount of boredom or friction when you are first trying it, rather than cutting the 5 minutes shorter. (The boredom may also be a sign that the problem isn't worth 5 minutes of your time, in which case... find a different problem!)

Let me know what you think about all this. Going forward, I expect to be using timers for a lot more than just cooking!

*Needless to say, I suggested he spend a little longer thinking about it before he added the feature to his plans. In less than a couple minutes, he found three or four legit problems that would need to be addressed before the feature would merit inclusion in the project. Yay Popper!

I would prefer to find out I was reading an outdated version of something before I started reading it, not at the end, and not in the comments.

I did some e-sleuthing around this thought and found On Creativity - The joys of 5 minute timers by Neel Nanda. …

My favourite part of the article is this:

I noticed a slight inconsistency here. You give exact links for each quote (by “exact” I mean links to highlighted passages) except this one, where you link to the article as a whole. If you turn the word “part” into a link to the passage, you’ll have perfect quoting consistency.

Here’s the exact link: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FHiM34PmrN224pqTz/on-creativity-the-joys-of-5-minute-timers#:~:text=Set%20a%205%20minute%20timer%2C%20and,5%20minute%20brainstorm%20for%20anything%20left.

It’s nice that you give exact links. Makes verification easier for readers.

There is, in the comments.

But there’s no indication that the current version has been superseded.

…the site should let [visitors] know if there is a superseding revised version of [an idea].

There are arrow buttons linking to the previous and next version, and the UI says which version you’re currently looking at.

I first want to see some more people posting to their profiles so there’ll be enough ideas to show in that tab.

Valid, done.

Both ideas are about working toward a universal theory of creation by studying parallels between mind and economy.

Pretty close!

🦉 = wisdom / focus / attention

🐚 = the fractal, recursive aspects of life, particularly in epistemology / striving towards "inward infinities"

🕯️ = this / having "the lights on" (being sentient, as opposed to being a philosophical zombie or a mindless animal)

🚀 = progress / striving towards "outward infinities" / let's colonise the galaxy!

I realise I don't have any overtly moral emojis in that set. But maybe that is fine.

Suggestion: Make italicised text the same colour as regular text.

Bold text is good in red. Italicised text is less legible, and the red compounds that.

This would also create more of a differentiation of emphasis between bold and italicised text.