Search Ideas
2416 ideas match your query.:
I would like to follow you but I don't want my notifications full of bug fix stuff 😅
If there was more granularity to the follow function I would use it a lot I think.
If I mute a discussion, does that stop me from getting notifications from the people I follow, when they interact with that discussion?
Search is site-wide. I have in mind a feed of what people are writing, that isn't in discussions.
I understand this might be too social-media-y for your taste, but I think it would be good to have. It doesn't need to be prominent. Discussions can remain the main focus.
Also, did you know you can follow people? Click the bell icon when you visit someone’s profile.
Try appending /latest to the link. I still need to expose this feature somehow, but you can use that in the meantime.
Example: https://veritula.com/ideas/4421-5-minute-creativity-tl-dr-when-making-a/latest
A lot of policies you describe are not explained. A simple, high level explanation of the goals of each section would go a long way. One or two sentences each at least. I would like to know how you have arrived at your policy ideas, not just what they are.
For example: what is the purpose of the 1% tax? Why are you rolling back building regulations? What is the proper role of government in education? What is the goal of your immigration policy?
But having a separate model isn’t exactly keeping things simple either.
Extend the existing Discussion model to have a nullable embed_url. An embedded discussion would not have a title.
That would prevent existing discussions from being embedded on other sites. But why prevent that?
That would mean people couldn’t programmatically use embed codes, like on their blogs. They would always have to manually go into V and create a discussion first.
Option 2: an embed code is shown on your profile, with a page-url attribute you fill in. That’s the page where you place the code. The first time someone posts a comment, the associated discussion is created. Instead of a title, the discussion gets assigned the URL. That way, people seeing the discussion on V can open the URL for context.
You could use your own definition of justificationism that equates it to foundationalism. But then you’d want to explain that choice.
Regardless, we’re getting too bogged down on terms. I think at this point it would be easier for you to just change your article so it either uses established terms with their accepted definitions or explains departures from them.
No, I’m saying the model you’re using claims they’re the same thing, contrary to your prior agreement in #4392. They’re still not actually the same thing, see #4387.
In that model, the final justification ends up serving as foundation.
This seems overkill for now. If people want to do this off-platform and then feed it into Veritula, they can do that.
“Justification without finality is fake.” (#4391) In other words, if it doesn’t claim to be final, it’s not justification.
Implemented as of ecc72ff. Check your profile.
This is the first idea posted straight to my profile, outside of discussions.
Dollar-Cost Averaging
Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) is when you invest a fixed amount on a regular basis regardless of market developments.
This practice can work well long term for assets that reflect the value of the entire stock market (or a big part of it).
Long term, we can expect the stock market as a whole to gain value. So if you invest part of your income every month, say, then your position will grow in the long run.
In the meantime, you get to reduce risk by not investing all your money at once. You also get to react to developments that affect the stock market and can decide to interrupt your investment schedule. But again, the idea is typically to invest regardless of market developments. I personally like ‘boring’ investment strategies, meaning strategies that are automated and reliable.
… regardless of market developments.
vs
You also get to react to developments …
A contradiction.
But this sounds like you’re saying justificationism is necessarily the same as foundationalism. Whereas in #4392 you agreed it’s only a kind of justifiationism.
I’m not sure foundationalism and justificationism are quite the same thing.
You are right. Foundationalism is a kind of justificationism. The secure foundation is a kind of justification.
I will have to rewrite this in my article.
The same passage quoted in #4388 (the first one) just links to an entire page with no quotes or section information. That makes verifying the information harder: readers would have to read the entire page.
Sources should be specific: either give a verbatim quote or link to a highlight.
The same passage quoted in #4388 (the first one) links to a secondary source on Popper. Secondary sources on Popper are usually bad. Use a primary source – something Popper himself said.
The article says:
A follower of the philosopher Karl Popper would object: isn’t this just foundationalism in disguise? … Popper showed that’s impossible: any justification needs a deeper justification, and that one needs another, so you either chase reasons forever or stop at one you can’t defend.
I didn’t read the entire linked page, but based on a word search for ‘regress’, it attributes the infinite-regress problem to Hans Albert, not Popper:
[Albert] argues that any attempt at justification faces a three-pronged difficulty that is traceable to Agrippa: One alternative leads to an infinite regress as one seeks to prove one assumption but then needs to assume some new one…