Search ideas

Idea: when you create a bounty, you set the amount you’re willing to pay per criticism and a ceiling for the total you’re willing to spend (no. of crits * amount per crit).

Your card is authorized for twice the ceiling. In addition, there’s a button to report abuse. If you’re a good citizen, you’ll be charged the ceiling, at most. But if you’re found to submit arbitrary criticisms to avoid paying, the bounty stops early and your card is charged the full authorization.

If you submit a criticism, you won’t want to wait indefinitely to get paid just because others are keeping the discussion going in a different branch.

I suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?

… I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479…

Editing ideas should be fixed now. (You won’t need to edit this one, though, since I’ve done the requisite housekeeping.)

That is simply an extension of the fact that solutions to problems don’t come reliably.

Superseded by #2501.

Supply: A limited supply (scarcity) may increase the value.

The scarcity of a useless thing doesn’t make it less useless.

Is "it contains bitcoin's solutions to fiat, and also solves bitcoin's lack of privacy" easy to vary? Could be made harder to vary by explaining the technicals of zero-knowledge proofs as well (though I'm not konwledgeable enough to do that here).

I think definitely worth trying, sounds like fun

Yes, that was what I was thinking. Presumably the OP could set their own deadline timeframe too.

As much as I dislike LLMs, I’m thinking of using them to show summaries of discussions at the top of the page. Summaries would reflect ideas without pending criticisms.

Some people – and I don’t know if this includes you or not – are overly worried about getting embarrassed or making silly mistakes.

There are some exceptions where reputation needs to be taken very seriously, but I think the general view to take in this matter is that no one cares. Think of the deepest embarrassment you’ve ever felt – and then try to replace that feeling with how others felt about your situation.

Like, if you’re on stage playing the guitar in front of hundreds of people, and you hit the wrong note, you may feel embarrassed. But many people didn’t even notice. And those who did probably didn’t care nearly as much about the mistake as you did.

Nevermind, this was addressed by #2462

Not if I do reactions on a per-paragraph basis. I think that’s a new feature none of those sites have.

The way I picture it, as you hover over different paragraphs, a reaction button appears and moves between paragraphs. So it would always be clear that reactions are on specific paragraphs. The user would pick whatever paragraph they most wish to react to.

For reactions to paragraphs, at least you could tell if the content someone reacted to has changed, and only then remove the reaction.

But presumably, the same is true for reactions to ideas as a whole. Reactions would have to be removed for revisions.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.

I could implement reactions on a per-paragraph basis.

There’s value in others being able to react as well. Maybe an idea affects them in some way or they want to voice support.

There’s value in reacting to top-level ideas, too.

Another reason I want people to use their true names is that I want Veritula to be a place for serious intellectuals, not yet another social network where people just screw around. Part of being a serious intellectual is public advocacy of one’s ideas and public updates on changed positions.

When people use their true names, I expect higher quality contributions, less rudeness, fewer trolls, that kind of thing. More accountability generally means higher quality.

One feature I have planned is private discussions that only you and people you invite can see.

The word ‘therefore’ in this context means that lack of certainty is the reason error correction is the means by which knowledge is created. I’m not sure that’s the reason.

And it’s not actually clear whether ‘therefore’ refers to the part “This means that we can't be certain about anything” or to “all knowledge contains errors.”

You can avoid all of these issues by simply removing the word ‘therefore’. Simpler.