Search Ideas

Some added colour:
https://x.com/philippilk/status/2016089604588290348?s=46

Apparently, stocks have fallen since the dot-com bubble when measured in gold instead of dollars: https://x.com/elerianm/status/1976237139185574170

Some comments suggest measuring stocks in gold is arbitrary, others say this development is simply due to inflation.

Are they right or is this development a deeper sign that the economy is in trouble?

Drugs are a net negative for society.
(This branch of the conversation has been moved to #4137)

The purpose of the law isn’t to minimise negatives and maximise positives. The purpose of the law is to uphold the rights of people.

This is speculation, see #4106. If it really becomes an issue, I can retire the feature or improve it.

I plan to go piecemeal by starting with reactions to ideas as a whole, then maybe to paragraphs/block-level elements down the line.

Would this work better as a criticism of #4058? That way, the relationship between these ideas might be clearer, and there’d be the possibility of a criticism chain.

Related to #4062, making any part of the drug trade illegal just gives gangs and cartels a leg up over law-abiding citizens.

But that way, you pretty much ensure that only scumbags sell drugs. And they definitely don’t care about their customers.

Agreed. Thanks.

‘Board’

Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.

Maybe it does. Any kind of reaction is a response that turns a criticism from unacknowledged to acknowledged.

Edit: …

Pointing out changes is discouraged. Version history and diffing take care of that for you.

I think the reason the limited set works well in X spaces is that there’s no text input. So there’s no way to sidestep the restriction.

For Veritula, it would be more like an emoji restriction on tweets. That wouldn’t work because you couldn’t stop people from posting arbitrary emojis in tweets by just typing them with their keyboards.

This seems both complicated and restrictive. People could easily sidestep the restriction anyway: nothing stops someone from leaving a comment with only a single emoji in it.

Too complicated/ambitious for a first implementation. Start piecemeal. But could be a promising approach if reactions to ideas as a whole end up being ambiguous (#2166).

I can speculate ahead of time, but I might implement reactions and find that this is not an issue after all. And if it is, I can either retire the feature or improve it.

I like the acknowledged/unacknowledged idea.

But this doesn’t address the scenario where someone wants to react to no particular paragraph but the idea as a whole.

Agreed, thanks. Fixed in #4095. “Since decision-making follows the same logic as truth-seeking, you can use these trees to make decisions, too.”

You could think up a design for a self-replicating machine and then build it. Assuming you made no critical mistakes, you have made a self-replicator that hasn’t self-replicated yet.

It is considered a replicator based on what it can do, rather than on what it has done.

I think the same logic applies because it’s not just memes that can have static and dynamic replication strategies – ideas in one mind can have those replication strategies, too.

I call a mind dominated by either replication strategy a dynamic or static mind, respectively.

Advocacy is not the same as telling people what to think.

Because decision-making is a special case of, ie follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, you can use such trees for decision-making, too.

This sentence is difficult to follow. Could it be made simpler or broken up?

Maybe there could be some type of guide for a user’s ideas generally. It takes him through all of his controversial ideas and let’s him either counter-criticize pending criticisms or revise his ideas, one at a time. And maybe the user could also choose to ‘abandon’ a controversial idea, in which case the guide would not show the idea again (unless maybe there was some new activity on the idea?).