Search Ideas
1635 ideas match your query.:
I spoke to soon. Rolling this back for now. Too jittery when scrolling on mobile. Non-trivial to implement. Need to see how other sites do it.
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. See activity 3207 in dev.
Would be nice if the copy button was sticky-top so that it scrolled with the user.
Just as nations can have different forms of governance, minds can too.
For example: Most probably have that CEO-sense of self.
Some minds with one coercive memeplex are more like dictatorships.
People with "smaller egos" (less anti-rational memes) are more like libertarian societies.
But people with set preferences for less self are more like communist societies. That's a kind of coerced decentralisation.
Split personalities would be akin to a highly polarised society that switches governance back and forth.
Summary
Ayn Rand says one important part of living rationally in an irrational society is to pronounce judgment.
In short, if someone attacks your values, say something! Especially if silence could be mistaken as sanction of evil.
If you don’t pronounce judgment, both good and evil know they can’t expect anything from you. So by default, silence favors evil and betrays good. There’s no such thing as moral neutrality or ‘grayness’.
To pronounce judgment, you don’t need to be omniscient or infallible. But you do need integrity.
Many people are afraid of being judged. They like to say “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” They hope to get a moral blank check by writing one for others.
But the reality is that people have to make choices. To make choices, they need moral values. So moral neutrality hurts their ability to make choices. It’s also a slippery slope toward evasions. When people are morally ‘gray’, they say things like ‘no one is fully good or fully bad.’ That just helps evil along.
The moral principle people should adopt instead is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
Judging means “evaluat[ing] a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard.” It’s not easy and you can’t do it automatically through feelings. It requires deliberate, rational thought. It must be well-reasoned and can’t be arbitrary.
Judging does not mean going around offering your opinion unsolicited or saving others. It does mean two things: “(a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one’s moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.”
Sometimes you can just say you disagree, other times you may need to state your views more fully. It depends on your interlocutor and on context.
Pronouncing judgment protects the clarity of your thoughts against society’s irrational background.
Ultimately, society is run either by “the man who is willing to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values” or by “the thug who is not troubled by questions of responsibility.”
So speak out when someone attacks your values.
Give this another shot. Should be fixed as of 6c7e74b.
For very deeply nested discussions, you may still need to scroll sideways to see some ideas. But you should now be able to zoom out far enough to always fit any idea into the viewport.
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’.
Valid. As of 7af3c7b, the site uses ‘USD’ throughout.
I implemented this a while back.
X caches link previews, so old previews remain the same. But new previews feature the discussion title, see eg https://www.opengraph.xyz/url/https%3A%2F%2Fveritula.com%2Fdiscussions%2Fcriticisms-of-zcash.
This is now a feature, see the ‘Funding’ section of a bounty.
Could this feature be unified with #2811 somehow?
Then I suggest revising #3968 so that it still captures the sentiment without containing factual falsehoods.
Undo/redo stack should preserve cursor position.
Steps to reproduce:
- Start with empty textarea.
- Type '('.
- Cursor is now inside '(|)'.
- Hit undo.
- Hit redo.
- Cursor is now behind '()|' but should be inside like in step 3.
By definition, there is nothing in the unknowable, since it can't be known.
This isn’t true. There are unknowable things. Look up uncomputable functions, see eg
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function#Uncomputable_functions_and_unsolvable_problems
- https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/2s2wgy/what_is_an_uncomputable_function/.
So there are things that computers like our brains can never access – there are fundamental, natural limitations.
In this context, I think of mysticism as restricting criticism and preventing error correction, ie creating a man-made barrier for reason. That’s different.
When the code overflows horizontally, a subtle inset shadow on the side shows that you can scroll:
const posts = [{id: 1, title: "Understanding JavaScript Closures in Depth", url: "https://example.com/articles/javascript-closures-deep-dive"},{id: 2, title: "A Complete Guide to Modern Web Development Practices", url: "https://example.com/articles/modern-web-dev-guide"},{id: 3, title: "Exploring the Node.js Event Loop and Async Patterns", url: "https://example.com/articles/nodejs-event-loop"}];function formatPost(post) {return `${post.id}: ${post.title} -> ${post.url}`;}function prettyPrint(posts) {return posts.map(formatPost).join(" | ");}console.log(prettyPrint(posts));
Code blocks need syntax highlighting.
Veritula used to have this feature but I removed it when diffing changed.