Search Ideas

Broken links

Broken link

This would work fine for discussion-specific or idea-specific activity feeds, even at scale.

Interview published today, with one of the founders of Wikipedia:
https://youtu.be/8-0vUZ0hTK4?si=Szd_nS4UvCy9Mifi

He argues, like I do, that Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles on each topic.

I partly agree with him on other problems he identifies, but unfortunately he doesn’t come at it from a Popperian angle.

This leads me to believe that my untidiness may have to do with physiological lethargy, and that increasing availability of biological energy may contribute to a solution to it.

A former coworker told me he sometimes struggled with self-doubt when he was in college. Then he noticed that the self-doubt would appear when he hadn’t eaten in a while. It consistently disappeared after meals.

Related to that, here’s a tip I like to follow. Anytime you go to a new place, like a hotel room or an AirBnB, designate a spot for your keys and valuables. Do this immediately upon arrival. After that, put those things there consistently. Never put them anywhere else. That should make it much harder to lose your valuables while traveling.

… may contribute to a solution it.

Typo/grammar

A Life Guided by Reason

In #2281, I explain how Veritula helps you make rational decisions – in other words, how to live rationally, ie, a life guided by reason. (I use the words ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ synonymously. The same goes for ‘unreason’ and ‘irrationality’.)

A life guided by reason defies the dominant, Kantian philosophy of our age. Ayn Rand summarized that philosophy as, “Be rational, except when you don’t feel like it.”¹ In other words, it says to mix reason and unreason; to stray from rationality arbitrarily; to be rational only sometimes. It claims that there is a necessary clash between reason and emotion. It is an attack on reason, an attempt to do the impossible – and it leads to dissatisfaction with yourself and conflict with others.

If you are rational only sometimes, if you stray from rationality arbitrarily, then you are irrational. There is no third option. This conclusion can be proven easily: if you tried to stray from rationality non-arbitrarily, ie, if you tried to come up with a considered argument for straying from rationality, you could only do so by following the steps in #2281. And those steps are the application of rationality again.

So it’s impossible to stray from rationality rationally. There is no gray area between reason and unreason. Rationality has an all-or-nothing character. This does not mean that reason has to snuff out all emotion. On the contrary: there is no necessary clash between rationality on the one hand and emotion on the other. Rationality means finding unanimous consent between emotion, explicit thought, inexplicit thought, and any other kind of idea.

If you follow the steps in #2281 consistently, then you are always rational. A life worth living is one guided exclusively by reason. Consistent application of rationality may be difficult at first, but with practice, it will get easier. Master it, and you will have a fighting chance of becoming what David Deutsch calls a beginning of infinity.

Marie Kondo says everything should have a home.

I think part of the problem is that I don’t have a dedicated final place where everything lives. I think creating and designating these spaces would go a long way, as I wouldn’t need to work out a place to put every item each time.

I think part of the problem is that I don’t have a dedicated finally place where everything lives. I think creating and designating these spaces would go a long way, as I wouldn’t need to work out a place to put every item each time.

It may be the case that food and dopaminergic substances decrease my threshold for what problems I feel are interesting enough to tackle at a given moment, including tidying up.

I notice that I tend to work harder at being tidy when I am well fed, or have consumed dopaminergic substances like nicotine.

I struggle keeping my private spaces as tidy as I would like.

Justificationism

The mistaken philosophical tradition holding that knowledge must be "justified" (i.e., proven, supported, or made probable) by appealing to an ultimate, infallible authority. Critical Rationalism identifies this entire approach as logically untenable, as any demand for justification leads to an inescapable logical trap known as the Münchhausen Trilemma: either an infinite regress (every justification needs a justification), circularity (the belief justifies itself), or dogmatism (the justification stops at a "self-evident" belief). Critical Rationalism is a non-justificationist philosophy; it rejects the entire quest for justified, certain foundations and replaces it with an emphasis on criticism and error correction.

Historicism

The mistaken belief that history is governed by discoverable, large-scale "laws of history" or "powerful historical trends". This belief leads to the idea of unconditional historical prophecy, which is anti-rational and politically disastrous, as seen in the philosophies of Plato, Hegel, and Marx. It is contrasted with the "piecemeal" method of making specific, conditional predictions.

This could lead to a cool knowledge graph feature down the line, where users could see how ideas might relate across discussions, and which ideas are referred to the most.

Idea: Links within Veritula could be made bidirectional. While viewing an idea, users could see all the ideas that refer to it. This could be displayed as a list of backlinks at the bottom of the idea’s page.

What if somebody wanted to post something related that isn’t a comment or criticism? Where/how would they do that?

I have largely inexplicit criticisms of the word ‘arena’ in this context, but one that bubbled up to the explicit level is that the word reminds me of Pokemon for some reason 😅

6623c22 implements #2802 and there is no difference in background between footer and page body anymore.

Maybe I’ll figure out the Brave quirk more generally someday, but it’s not noticeably anymore.

If I wanted to keep and share information on Karl Popper, it would be a lot more intuitive to produce an article on him in encyclopedia style—where I can present information in a hierarchy, rather than creating a discussion and then making each detail about him a top-level idea, which is more chaotic.

You already don’t have to do divvy it up like that. Nothing is stopping you from creating a discussion called ‘Karl Popper’ and then posting a single, long-form, top-level idea where you present information in a hierarchy.

Forget the term ‘article’ for a second. It sounds like you want the ability to post ideas without having to associate them with a discussion, is that right?

‘page’ status

What is a page status? How did you determine that an idea’s page status is not the same as a Wikipedia article’s?