Search Ideas

Feature idea: pay people to criticize an idea.

You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of 100 bucks, say, which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). Minimum of $5.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period.

No need, see #3420.

This is now a feature, see the ‘Funding’ section of a bounty.

When I revise a criticism, I can’t see what it criticises. The edit screen should show the parent idea, similar to when I write a new criticism.

Archiving covers this.

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.

Not meant literally.

Can shorting be a mechanism of error correction?

I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and lazy as possible.

Can shorting be a mechanism of error correction?

I've also noticed incumbent advantage in business. Unless a competitor offers a better product, a company can be as corrupt and evil as possible.

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.

Bounties should be clear about what currency they are being paid out in.

Why haven't all atheists killed themselves?

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.

The sentiment of the sentence stands. Even with uncomputable functions, one shouldn't waste time in trying to solve them.

Fixed as of bbcefa8.

Should not autopair behind a word character.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Type 'foo'.
2. With the cursor behind the second 'o', hit single quote: '.
3. The text now reads foo'' but should only read foo'.

After a non-word character (eg linebreak, period, colon, semicolon etc) though, it should still autopair.