Search Ideas

You want people who don’t care. You need neutrality.

Force means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This either introduces friction because they will drag their feet, or they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest, which isn’t necessarily justice. For example (emphasis added):

[A] guy said to use the opportunity to fight back against laws you don't agree with. I thought about doing that even though we were asked if we could put personal feelings aside and enforce the law and I didn't want to be the one to say I couldn't so I stayed quiet. Then I thought, “What if I'm the only juror who thinks the law is unjust”? “Do I really want to drag this out just to fight the system”? I decided to make my decision based solely on whatever would get this over with the quickest. In this particular case a guy was charged with crimes that I don't think should be crimes anyway. Since I know the majority of people in my community feel the opposite, I chose to keep my opinion to myself for fear of ridicule of people knowing my feelings.

Force means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This introduces friction because they will drag their feet.

“The random selection helps keep all citizens equal.” (Source)

“If we make it a profession, we'll still have elites judging commoners and commoners unable to get justice.” (Source)

“If we only take volunteers, we'll be perpetually lacking jurors or we'll have jurors that don't represent the general populace.” (Source)

We need jury duty because without it, “we can't guarantee the accused their right to trial by a jury of their peers if we don't have peers available to serve on juries.”

I have an … unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible …

This preference is not unconscious. You are aware of it, otherwise you could not have written about it. Maybe you meant to say that you sometimes enact this preference automatically/uncritically/mindlessly? (I think those three words basically all have the same meaning.)

Nice, thanks.

Thinking about it some more, I wonder if honesty is more fundamental than some of the other virtues. As I’ve written elsewhere, honesty includes the refusal to ignore certain criticisms. That’s a prerequisite of rationality. Whereas justice, for example, seems downstream of rationality.

I think forgiveness could be another core value. Something like 'when I make mistakes, I will pick myself up at the earliest possible time and keep going.'

This sound like it’s meant to be an example of forgiveness, but I’m not sure it is. It sounds more like an example of resilience.

What do you think forgiveness means, @zelalem-mekonnen?

What happens when you fail to commit to these values?

I think forgiveness could be another core value. Something like 'when I make mistakes, I will pick myself up at the earliest possible time and keep going.'

Core Moral Virtues (influenced by Ayn Rand and CR)

• Rationality: The commitment to the ongoing deliberate use of conjecture and criticism, and to only adopting ideas that have no pending criticisms.

• Honesty: A refusal to evade one's thoughts, a commitment to searching for one's own errors, and a refusal to fake reality to others.

• Integrity: The refusal to permit a breach between one's convictions and one's actions.

• Independence: The acceptance of one's own mind as the first and final executor of rationality within their own lives.

• Justice: The application of rationality in judging ideas, people, and actions, and acting on those evaluations proportionately.

• Productiveness: The application of rationality to sustaining and improving one's life and circumstances.

• Pride: An insatiable drive to find and fix errors in one's character, knowledge, and creations. “[M]oral ambitiousness”, as Ayn Rand puts it.

Core Moral Virtues (influenced by Ayn Rand and CR)

• Rationality: The commitment to the ongoing deliberate use of conjecture and criticism, and to only adopting ideas that have no pending criticisms.

• Honesty: A refusal to evade one's thoughts, a commitment to searching for one's own errors, and a refusal to fake reality to others.

• Integrity: The refusal to permit a breach between one's convictions and one's actions.

• Independence: The acceptance of one's own mind as the first and final executor of rationality within their own lives.

• Justice: The application of rationality in judging ideas, people, and actions and acting on those evaluations proportionately.

• Productiveness: The application of rationality to sustaining and improving one's life and circumstances.

• Pride: An insatiable drive to find and fix errors in one's character, knowledge, and creations. “[M]oral ambitiousness” as Ayn Rand puts it.

… within their own lives.

Grammar. Do you mean ‘one’s own life’? Or simpler ‘one’s life’.

What do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.

Is there overlap between conscientiousness and thoroughness? Is being thorough part of being conscientious?

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, 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, notify participants.

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*

If the discussion owner accidentally removes someone and then adds them back right away, it sucks if all the associated records are still gone.

What if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?