Search Ideas
2416 ideas match your query.:
I could indeed have been clearer. The point isn’t that using creativity to re-establish direction is the distinguishing feature. The distinction is the method of conflict resolution.
In a non-coercive, rational resolution, you take the distraction or impulse seriously, examine its content, and form a theory of what problem it’s signaling. Then you conjecture candidate solutions and select one to try. A common solution is to acknowledge the distraction and explicitly schedule it for later, which removes the unfinished business feeling it creates in the moment. Direction returns because the conflict got resolved.
In self-coercion, the method is irrational and coercive: you don’t examine the content of the distraction at all. You steamroll it or swat it away. You may regain direction, but the underlying problem remains unresolved.
Both methods cost creativity, but the coercive one causes more downstream problems (maybe even suffering), which then requires further creative expenditure to be resolved in the future.
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?
Both. But I might be wrong on this, because competition doesn't create error correction either, humans do.
Then I suggest revising #3968 so that it still captures the sentiment without containing factual falsehoods.
There is overlap but I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. Many virtues overlap. The purpose of identifying them is to draw focus to different aspects of virtues as such. Conscientiousness and thoroughness are quite similar, but I think different enough to merit mentioning both.
Excellence and pride are more similar IMO, but I think that it is fine to feature both.
Being as evil as possible would include things like murdering people. I don't think businesses can get away with murdering people just because they don't have viable competitors.
If a business gets away with murdering people, it is usually for other reasons, like creating coverups or lobbying politicians.
I think it is an error to short stocks in most situations.
It might be an error correcting mechanism at the level of the market, but that is not what I am talking about when I say I don't like shorting. This discussion is specifically about making money in the markets.
Dealing in larger sums means you have to make big trades to building meaningful positions. Moving large money in, around, and out of the market takes time and needs to be done carefully (so that the price doesn't get away from you). Small investors can build proportionally large positions much easier.
It is like piloting an oil tanker vs a speed boat.
Dealing with larger sums of money narrows your investable universe.
As an example, Berkshire Hathaway has an investable universe of only a few hundred companies. Everything else is too small to move the needle for them.
There are many great opportunities available only to smaller investors.
Do you mean error correction within the company or at the level of the economy?
Yes, but I think it is largely the interpretation of information that matters.
Different people respond very differently to the same information.
The sentiment of the sentence stands. Even with uncomputable functions, one shouldn't waste time in trying to solve them.
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.
"Man simply invented God in order not to kill himself, that is the summary of universal history down to the moment."
Dostoevsky
"Man simply invented God in order not to kill himself, that is the summary of universal history down to the moment."
Markets are also mostly based on knowledge from the outside. If you invest based on internal knowledge, that will be called insider trading (not making a moral judgement whether insider trading is good or bad).