Search Ideas

There could be a grace period. For example, 24 hours after the bounty ends, no new criticisms can be posted on the bountied idea. That way, the bounty initiator has time to review pending criticisms.

and others

If others can still participate during that time, it’s not really a grace period.

Then all pending criticisms automatically receive equal payouts.

This idea introduces additional complexity and edge cases. For example, what happens if authorization fails? Need something simpler for an MVP version of this feature.

While this idea sounded promising at first, I now realize it just moves the deadline problem one level underneath the bountied idea.

Would still be a hassle for users to track refunds.

There could still be a button to report abuse. People found to abuse deadlines could become ineligible for payouts and excluded from participating in future bounties.

Although there’s a risk for abuse, that’s a feature: it will lead to lively discussions among critics.

What incentive would others have to submit arbitrary criticisms? They’re not the ones paying.

Card authorizations will necessarily have a deadline.

There is a counter-incentive to be the first to submit a criticism since subsequent criticisms run the risk of being duplicates, and being criticized as such.

I believe Veritula would lose money on refunds.

That seems like a tough sell. Users might not be willing to spend money without knowing whether anyone will submit any criticisms.

Maybe, but what if re-authorization fails? Then nobody gets paid.

The bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.

Yes, people could just start bounties on criticisms.

I think of it in terms of error correction: all fields where progress is possible allow us to identify and correct errors.

Empirical fields use facts. In empirical fields, error identification involves finding a discrepancy between theories and observation.

I’d consider aesthetics and economics at least partly empirical since you can make testable predictions. You can test an economic policy, for example, and see whether its predictions match (correspond to) outcomes. In music, things can sound unpleasant.

No worries :-). Yeah, this is the part that confuses me about correspondence:

Which fields (apart from science) have "facts", and which consist merely of useful/adapted knowledge?

For instance, are there musical facts, economic facts, aesthetic facts, etc?

Fixed as of bd7c1b6.

Done, see #3413.

I don’t know anyone on Veritula. Can I still join?

Yes! Start by chiming in on one of the existing discussions or creating a new discussion. People will likely contribute.

If you have a topic you’d rather discuss in private, with a select few, make your discussion private. No one except the people you invite and admins will see it.

You can even have productive discussions by yourself. Not sure what to make for dinner? Want to move but not sure where? Start a discussion, submit some ideas, criticisms, and counter-criticisms, and see which ideas remain without any pending criticisms.

You’ll gain clarity to make rational decisions.

Some things wrong with flouride:
https://x.com/ChrisMasterjohn/status/1853076325067591812?s=20

Valid

Sorry for the late reply. I don’t know. I don’t think the aim of math is correspondence to physical facts like in science. But maybe it’s correspondence to mathematical facts.

Since this criticism (having to pay federal income tax) is true of any US state, I wouldn’t hold it against Nevada specifically unless you wish to rule out the US as a whole.