Search Ideas
2065 ideas match your query.:
We will update you on news, events, and do longer form write-ups […]
‘longer-form’
[…] on the projects discussed in the talks, […]
You mentioned the talks in the previous sentence. Remove “discussed in the talks” and instead say ‘discussed projects’ or ‘projects that were discussed’.
[…] as we now have many more news sources we didn’t yet know about.
Don’t explain yourself to your readers. Remove this part.
Not a lawyer but reproducing the entire letter from Próspera ZEDE is presumably a violation of their copyright.
In the coming period, expect us to pick up on many of the talks’ subject matter.
Zu- series of popup projects
That hyphen looks out of place.
The Honduran Supreme Court still needs to publish an explanatory addendum on the passed law to explain how (existing) ZEDEs will be dealt with after this ruling.
Passive voice hides accountability. Who will deal with ZEDEs? Use active voice accordingly.
Prospects for Próspera and other ZEDEs look dire and in a recent post […]
The alliteration threw me off a bit here. And if they’re dire they’re not really prospects. ‘Outlook’ might work better here.
lighter taxes and regulations
‘lower taxes and lighter regulations’ (I don’t think taxes can be ‘light’)
made […] legally possible
Just say ‘legalized’
I now see that the newsletter links to an explanation further down:
ZEDEs are SEZs in Honduras.
But that’s too late. May have already lost readers at that point.
Honduran Supreme Court declares ZEDEs unconstitutional, putting Próspera and other ZEDEs in jeopardy.
Not everyone knows what a “ZEDE” is. Is it an acronym? What does it stand for?
Your subconscious is like a computer […]
She says “like” so the sentence is technically correct, but it would have been better if she had said the subconscious is a program (or an amalgamation of programs). What she’s presumably getting at here is that the subconscious is automatic like a computer and unlike the conscious, which can stop and reflect and criticize and so on.
more correct
Something is either correct it isn’t. There is no “more” correct.
I just found this related Popper quote underscoring my point:
Truth is hard to come by. It needs both ingenuity in criticizing old theories, and ingenuity in the imaginative invention of new theories. This is so not only in the sciences, but in all fields.
[…] your subconscious is programmed by chance […]
This sounds as if chance was the programmer. The word ‘randomly’ might have been better. But that presumably still isn’t quite what she meant; I think she meant something like ‘haphazardly’, with no clear direction, by uncritical integration, ie osmosis, of ideas from the surrounding culture, as I believe she put it elsewhere.
[The] main function [of your subconscious] is the integration of your ideas.
Isn’t it the conscious mind that does the integrating, and then the subconscious stores the integrated ideas and executes them in applicable contexts?
[…] more complex a computer than men can build […]
It’s not clear to me that the basic building blocks of the subconscious (as opposed to its components at runtime) are necessarily all that complex. Why couldn’t they be simple?
[…] more complex a computer than men can build […]
Unclear what exactly “can” means here. More complex than we can build today? True. More complex than we could build in principle? Not true: we could build it, given the right knowledge.
To prevent edit warring and vandalism, maybe Veritula could have a reputation system similar to that of Stack Overflow, where you need to earn enough reputation before you can edit someone else’s post, say.
I also recall Deutsch saying somewhere that there is no such thing as being “fully rational” anyway – that there is no ceiling to how rational one can be.
Deutsch would know that children generally can’t help with a chemistry problem that requires a PhD, say, so this criticism can’t apply.
Deutsch doesn’t claim that children are “fully rational”. His article is compatible with children being only partially rational but still able to solve problems as long as they’re not prevented from doing so. That sounds a lot more realistic.
Lack of coercion damage/irrationalities may not be sufficient to solve problems, but it may well be necessary, or very nearly necessary.
It’s true that problems at the forefront of science are often extremely difficult; it may take a genius a lifetime to solve even one of them, if he's lucky.
But everyday problems in the household are typically much easier to solve.
For example, parents may want to get their child to eat broccoli for dinner, against the child’s wishes. They then take away his dinner altogether so that the “natural consequence”, as the OP in the original article called it, of the child going hungry that night ‘teaches’ the child that he should eat his broccoli.
In such cases, which are common, Deutsch is right that simply letting the child’s creativity take over really does solve the problem easily. The child simply picks something he wishes to eat instead. If the parents just got out of the way, the problem would practically solve itself.