Search Ideas
1940 ideas match your query.:
Could simply sort comments by pending criticism first, creation date second. (Variation of #4274.)
This has been implemented, sans page at /:username/bounties, which seems unnecessary.
Done, mostly as of 346fb25, then polished in 6dbf721, 5381525, 9f0f936, and 91e6f27.
Use frame layout for turbo frame requests? https://discuss.rubyonrails.org/t/the-right-way-to-override-render-method/84765/2
Is there a way to teach user-built helpers how to process Hiccdown? Or maybe intercepting capture already took care of this?
Could the application layout live in ApplicationHelper#layout?
The Popper-Miller theorem works by splitting any prediction h into two pieces…
I wonder if your revision from hypothesis to revision was a bit sweeping.
Do they really argue predictions can be split into two pieces? That doesn’t sound right. But I could see hypotheses being split in two.
How would you suggest I rename it?
Instead of “Say your theory is "all swans are white."”, write ‘Say your prediction is "all swans are white."’
I don’t know if that replacement works for “But Popper and Miller split the theory into two pieces…” and similar parts, because those may or may not need to be about a theory rather than a prediction.
It's still a testable hypothesis.
No, it’s a prediction. “A hypothesis … is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis (links and formatting removed)
Again, ‘all swans are white’ is not an explanation.
Yeah explanations answer ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions. Popper wrote:
In seeking pure knowledge our aim is, quite simply, to understand, to answer how-questions and why-questions. These are questions which are answered by giving an explanation. Thus all problems of pure knowledge are problems of explanation.
‘All swans are white’ is like saying 2 + 2 = 4. It predicts a result given a theory of addition. It does not state the theory.
Say your theory is "all swans are white."
That doesn’t sound like a theory. It sounds like a prediction/statement.
Once this idea is implemented, the ‘Show activity’ button on bounties#show can link to the implementation.
Double-messaging is risky. There can be times when it’s okay, but need to be careful. https://www.verywellmind.com/double-texting-dos-and-don-ts-8784078
Another thing you can mirror is effort. How much effort is someone putting into the conversation? If they’re sending typos, leaving out punctuation, making grammatical mistakes while you put in the effort to make none of those mistakes, there’s an imbalance.
Scheduling emails and text messages can help. But you risk sending outdated replies if you get another message in the meantime. I wish there was a feature to automatically cancel a scheduled message.
Another rule of thumb, I think also from Atomic Attraction: roughly mirror people’s response times. If someone takes days to get back to you, and you answer right away, you come off low value, even desperate.
social_intell on IG says the way to distinguish between genuine interest and polite dismissal is specificity.
If someone says ‘keep me posted on that’ or ‘we should hang out sometime’, that’s vague; they’re politely ending the conversation. If you do follow up with them, you’re outing yourself as low value and socially incompetent.
If they really want you to follow up, or if they really want to hang out again, they’ll be specific and create action: ‘let me introduce you to my colleague Peter, he can solve your problem, what’s your email?’, or ‘are you free next Wednesday at 7?’
Daniel Vassallo says to give, give, give, give before you ask. In other words, provide much more value than you hope to get from others. Only then can you realistically expect anything back.