Search Ideas

There’s a small issue related to previewing changes in code blocks: even when there are no changes yet, if the code overflows horizontally, the scroll shadow is shown through DOM manipulation, which in turn triggers the diffing library into thinking the user made a change.

So then the same code block is shown without any changes, under the ‘Changes’ tab, which is confusing. It should still just say ‘No changes’.

The diff view can’t handle the removal/replacement of entire code blocks yet. The removed block looks broken, the new block doesn’t show at all.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize an idea.

You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period.

When I revise a criticism, I can’t see what it criticises. The edit screen should show the parent idea, similar to when I write a new criticism.

Should not autopair behind a word character.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Type 'foo'.
2. With the cursor behind the second 'o', hit single quote: '.
3. The text now reads foo'' but should only read foo'.

After a non-word character (eg linebreak, period, colon, semicolon etc) though, it should still autopair.

Undo/redo stack should preserve cursor position.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Start with empty textarea.
2. Type '('.
3. Cursor is now inside '(|)'.
4. Hit undo.
5. Hit redo.
6. Cursor is now behind '()|' but should be inside like in step 3.

…often they are dealing with larger sums of money, which can make it harder to make higher returns…

Why is it harder to make higher returns for larger sums?

When an idea has nothing but a code block, there’s too much of a margin at the bottom, between the block and the border of the highlight.

There’s still an issue on ideas#show. When an idea has nothing but a code block, there’s too much of a margin at the bottom, between the block and the border of the highlight.

Done as of cc1ab95.

Ruby example:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

def criticized? idea
  pending_criticisms(idea).any?
end

def pending_criticisms idea
  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| pending_criticisms(c).none? }
end

def criticisms idea
  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end

JS example (h/t ChatGPT):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

function criticized(idea) {
  return pendingCriticisms(idea).length > 0;
}

function pendingCriticisms(idea) {
  return criticisms(idea).filter(c => pendingCriticisms(c).length === 0);
}

function criticisms(idea) {
  return children(idea).filter(c => c.isCriticism);
}

Code blocks need syntax highlighting.

Veritula used to have this feature but I removed it when diffing changed.

Summary

People are losing their ability to think and act on principles. But they need principles to set long-range goals and make decisions. Without them, people become their own destroyers. Modern philosophy is to blame because it attacks reason.

To stop this suicidal trend, we need to understand the following rules about principles and the relationship between principles and goals:

First, when two men or groups are in conflict while having the same basic principles, the more consistent one will win.

Since they are in conflict, at least one of them must be inconsistent. So the one with the clearer vision of his goal, who more consistently works toward it, will win. The less consistent one just hastens his adversary’s victory and becomes weaker in the process.

This dynamic applies regardless of the merits of their shared principles.

Example: republicans vs democrats. Both agree that the government should interfere with the economy. They just disagree on implementation details. Democrats are more consistently committed to growing government power; the republicans just end up “me-too’ing” them. Recent example.

As a result, government control has been growing over the decades. It will continue to grow until the communists replace socialists and ‘achieve’ “universal immolation”.

This trend can seem inevitable. Some people mistake it for historicism, but it can be reversed by a change of basic principles.

Second, when two men or groups collaborate while having different basic principles, the more evil or irrational one will win.

Mixing opposing basic principles favors bad ones and drives out the good ones. “What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?”

When good and evil collaborate, it hurts good and helps evil. The good has nothing to gain from evil, while evil stands to gain everything from the good.

Example: collaboration between an honest businessman and a swindler. The swindler does not contribute to the success of the business; the honest man’s reputation ends up luring in more victims than the swindler could have fooled on his own.

Another example: membership of the Soviet Union in the UN. The resulting collaboration between the West and the Soviet Union gave the latter unearned respect, moral sanction, and access to resources. As a result, the Western world has been swallowed by “cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt…”

Third, defining opposite basic principles clearly and openly helps rationality; hiding or evading them helps irrationality.

The rational side of a conflict wants to be understood. It’s in harmony with reality, so it has nothing to hide. But the irrational side “has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals.”

The good, the rational must be actively upheld; the bad, the irrational is achieved only by default, by not acting. Construction is hard; destruction is easy.

Lessons

1. Adhere to your principles with consistency.

2. Never mix opposing basic principles! Leave irrational/evil people to the consequences of their errors.

3. Be open and transparent; don’t hide things.

Summary

People are losing their ability to think and act on principles. But they need principles to set long-range goals and make decisions. Without them, people become their own destroyers. Modern philosophy is to blame because it attacks reason.

To stop this suicidal trend, we need to understand the following rules about principles and the relationship between principles and goals:

First, when two men or groups are in conflict while having the same basic principles, the more consistent one will win.

Since they are in conflict, at least one of them must be inconsistent. So the one with the clearer vision of his goal, who more consistently works toward it, will win. The less consistent one just hastens his adversary’s victory and becomes weaker in the process.

This dynamic applies regardless of the merits of their shared principles.

Example: republicans vs democrats. Both agree that the government should interfere with the economy. They just disagree on implementation details. Democrats are more consistently committed to growing government power; the republicans just end up “me-too’ing” them. Recent example.

As a result, government control has been growing over the decades. It will continue to grow until the communists replace socialists and ‘achieve’ “universal immolation”.

This trend can seem inevitable. Some people mistake it for historicism, but it can be reversed by a change of basic principles.

Second, when two men or groups collaborate while having different basic principles, the more evil or irrational one will win.

Mixing opposing basic principles favors bad ones and drives out the good ones. “What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?”

When good and evil collaborate, it hurts good and helps evil. The good has nothing to gain from evil, while evil stands to gain everything from the good.

Example: collaboration between an honest businessman and a swindler. The swindler does not contribute to the success of the business; the honest man’s reputation ends up luring in more victims than the swindler could have fooled on his own.

Another example: membership of the Soviet Union in the UN. The resulting collaboration between the West and the Soviet Union gave the latter unearned respect, moral sanction, and access to resources. As a result, the Western world has been swallowed by “cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt…”

Third, defining opposite basic principles clearly and openly helps rationality; hiding or evading them helps irrationality.

The rational side of a conflict wants to be understood. It’s in harmony with reality, so it has nothing to hide. But the irrational side “has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals.”

The good, the rational must be actively upheld; the bad, the irrational is achieved only by default, by not acting. Construction is hard; destruction is easy.

Lessons

Adhere to your principles with consistency.

Never mix opposing basic principles! Leave irrational/evil people to the consequences of their errors.

Be open and transparent; don’t hide things.

Summary

People are losing their ability to think and act on principles. But they need principles to set long-range goals and make decisions. Without them, people become their own destroyers. Modern philosophy is to blame because it attacks reason.

To stop this suicidal trend, we need to understand the following rules about principles and the relationship between principles and goals:

First, when two men or groups are in conflict while having the same basic principles, the more consistent one will win.

Since they are in conflict, at least one of them must be inconsistent. So the one with the clearer vision of his goal, who more consistently works toward it, will win. The less consistent one just hastens his adversary’s victory and becomes weaker in the process.

This dynamic applies regardless of the merits of their shared principles.

Example: republicans vs democrats. Both agree that the government should interfere with the economy. They just disagree on implementation details. Democrats are more consistently committed to growing government power; the republicans just end up “me-too’ing” them. Recent example.

As a result, government control has been growing over the decades. It will continue to grow until the communists replace socialists and ‘achieve’ “universal immolation”.

This trend can seem inevitable. Some people mistake it for historicism, but it can be reversed by a change of basic principles.

Second, when two men or groups collaborate while having different basic principles, the more evil or irrational one will win.

Mixing opposing basic principles favors bad ones and drives out the good ones. “What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?”

When good and evil collaborate, it hurts good and helps evil. The good has nothing to gain from evil, while evil stands to gain everything from the good.

Example: collaboration between an honest businessman and a swindler. The swindler does not contribute to the success of the business; the honest one’s reputation ends up luring in more victims than the swindler could have fooled on his own.

Another example: membership of the Soviet Union in the UN. The resulting collaboration between the West and the Soviet Union gave the latter unearned respect, moral sanction, and access to resources. In exchange, the Western world has been swallowed by “cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt…”

Third, defining opposite basic principles clearly and openly helps rationality; hiding or evading them helps irrationality.

The rational side of a conflict wants to be understood. It’s in harmony with reality, so it has nothing to hide. But the irrational side “has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals.”

The good, the rational must be actively upheld; the bad, the irrational is achieved only by default, by not acting. Construction is hard; destruction is easy.

Lessons

Adhere to your principles with consistency.

Never mix opposing basic principles! Leave irrational/evil people to the consequences of their errors.

Be open and transparent; don’t hide things.

Summary

People are losing their ability to think and act on principles. But they need principles to set long-range goals and make decisions. Without them, people become their own destroyers. Modern philosophy is to blame because it attacks reason.

To stop this suicidal trend, we need to understand the following rules about principles and the relationship between principles and goals:

First, when two men or groups are in conflict while having the same basic principles, the more consistent one will win.

Since they are in conflict, at least one of them must be inconsistent. So the one with the clearer vision of his goal, who more consistently works toward it, will win. The less consistent one just hastens his adversary’s victory and becomes weaker in the process.

This dynamic applies regardless of the merits of their shared principles.

Example: republicans vs democrats. Both agree that the government should interfere with the economy. They just disagree on implementation details. Democrats are more consistently committed to growing government power; the republicans just end up “me-too’ing” them. Recent example.

As a result, government control has been growing over the decades. It will continue to grow until the communists replace socialists and ‘achieve’ “universal immolation”.

This trend can seem inevitable. Some people mistake it for historicism, but it can be reversed by a change of basic principles.

Second, when two men or groups collaborate while having different basic principles, the more evil or irrational one will win.

Mixing opposing basic principles favors bad ones and drives out the good ones. “What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?”

When good and evil collaborate, it hurts good and helps evil. The good has nothing to gain from evil, while evil stands to gain everything from the good.

Example: collaboration between an honest businessman and a swindler. The swindler does not contribute to the success of the business; the honest one’s reputation ends up luring in more victims than the swindler could have fooled on his own.

Another example: membership of the Soviet Union in the UN. The resulting collaboration between the West and the Soviet Union gave the latter unearned respect, moral sanction, and access to resources. In exchange, the Western world has been swallowed by “cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt…”

Third, defining opposite basic principles clearly and openly helps rationality; hiding or evading them helps irrationality.

The rational side of a conflict wants to be understood. It’s in harmony with reality, so it has nothing to hide. But the irrational side “has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals.”

The good, the rational must be actively upheld; the bad, the irrational is achieved only by default, by not acting. Construction is hard; destruction is easy.

Lesson

Never mix opposing basic principles! Leave irrational/evil people to the consequences of their errors.

How Do Bounties Work?

Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.

Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.

How do I participate?

First, log in or sign up.

Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.

That’s it – you’re in.

How do I get paid?

Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.

To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:

1. Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
2. Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms when the review period begins.
3. Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
4. You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the review period ends.

The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.

Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.

How much will I get paid?

The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.

For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.

Fractions of cents are not paid out.

How do I run a bounty?

Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).

Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.

Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.

The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. Toward the end, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.

If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.

Can I fund an existing bounty?

Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is authorized but not charged.

If the bounty owner accepts any submissions during the review period, your card is charged the full authorization. If he rejects all submissions, your card is never charged.

Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.

Start a bounty today. Terms apply.

@liberty-fitz-claridge says (#3885) it’d be implausible for HTV to be justificationist since that would contradict the rest of Deutsch’s anti-justificationist philosophy.

Veritula implements unanimous consent …

I just realized that this notion also maps onto Ayn Rand’s idea that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men.” (From The Virtue of Selfishness.)

There’s a reason rationality means lack of conflict.

Veritula implements unanimous consent …

I just realized that this notion also maps onto Ayn Rand’s idea that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men.” (From The Virtue of Selfishness.)

There’s a reason rationality means lack of conflict.

Been trying a slight modification of bounties in prod for a couple of weeks or so. Working well so far.

@dirk-meulenbelt recently offered to chip in for a bounty I want to run. That got me thinking: multiple people should be able to fund bounties.

How would you preview text in nodes?

@tyler-mills says:

… I’m finding the threads a bit cumbersome to keep track of. Would love an option to have each top level idea in a column, and horizontal scrolling would be fine with me if there are many of them.

@tyler-mills says:

I keep coming back to a graph-based presentation. Every comment a node, edges red if ending in criticisms. I crave a way to see structurally how many red criticism threads and grey comment threads are stemming from a given idea. The red ones could be bold and bright if they lead to an uncriticized idea, else dim and thin. Then we can see at a glance which ideas are sources of more criticisms, and/or hold greater opportunities for further criticism — can see which ideas are “deeper” niches, one might say (..!). Have greater evolvability…

Basically not doable for the user with the current bubble+hashtag method. But again it could just be an optional view. I think I mentioned I find that Kialo does a cool job with their sun dial diagrams (which are optional).

You need to mark your submission as a criticism if you want it to be eligible for a payout from the bounty.

‘How Do Bounties Work?’