Search Ideas

Practicing remembering the homes of everything requires that I have something external to refer to correct mistakes when I make them, so this doesn’t defeat the potential need for a list or something of the sort.

I have a poor memory relating to keeping track of what things I own, and it won’t help if I also have to remember where everything lives.

Should I write down a list of all permanent items and their homes? Ideally I wouldn’t need to do that.

I have a poor memory relating to keeping what things I actually have, and it won’t help if I also have to remember where everything lives.

Should I write down a list of all permanent items and their homes? Ideally I wouldn’t need to do that.

Just automatise it. Putting things in the right place is a fairly straightforward thing to practice, and there is no reason you couldn’t automatise the homes of all your things.

This is useful for fungible or semi-fungible items, or items that are easily categorised, but not helpful for unique items.

Grouping items by category goes a long way in reducing what needs to be remembered. I don’t need to remember where every sock goes because the simple algorithm “if sock: put in sock drawer” takes care of all socks.

I have a poor memory relating to keeping track of items, and it won’t help if I also have to remember where everything lives.

Should I write down a list of all permanent items and their homes? Ideally I wouldn’t need to do that.

Never put them anywhere else.

I believe this will be a key thing for me to automatise. Many of my things live in sort of ‘interim homes’ on the way to some not-yet-defined permanent home—which they never seem to make it to, of course.

My personal spaces are fairly bland and oddly proportioned. They are not aesthetic at all, even when maximally tidy. Aligning my living spaces with my aesthetic preferences may increase my baseline motivation to keep them tidy.

I noticed today that things in my shared spaces have better defined homes than the things in my private spaces, in the sense of #2840. ‘Relationship maintenance ‘may only be a trivial factor compared to what I describe in #2840.

I’ll test giving everything in my private spaces a dedicated home. From there it should be easier to understand how important ‘relationship maintenance’ is as a factor in my unconscious and inexplicit motivations for tidying up.

I noticed today that things in my shared spaces have better defined homes than the things in my private spaces, in the sense of #2840. Relationship maintenance may be a factor, it might be a trivial factor compared to what I describe in #2840.

I’ll test giving everything in my private spaces a dedicated home. From there it should be easier to understand how important ‘relationship maintenance’ is as a factor in my unconscious and inexplicit motivations for tidying up.

Fixed as of 27123bd.

Done as of 27123bd.

Bug: as you cycle through a parent’s versions on ideas#show, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings.

Bug when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions: on page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.

Shouldn’t have more than one criticism at a time.

That in and of itself isn’t a bug if the different revisions leading to the highlighted idea have different numbers of criticisms.

The issue also isn’t that there are other revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea.

The real issue is twofold:

1. On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
2. As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.

Bugs when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions:

1. On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
2. As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.

That it and of itself isn’t a bug if the different revisions leading to the highlighted idea have different numbers of criticisms.

The issue also isn’t that there are other revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea.

The real issue is twofold:

1. On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
2. As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.

The red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many pending criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five pending criticisms.

But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify pending criticisms.

There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only pending criticisms.

The feature wasn’t quite polished. For example, arrow navigation through the dropdown menu was missing. And there were some bugs. But it’s polished now and the bugs should be fixed as of 4ced719.

It leaves room for something, but it’s not clear what.

Well, he did say “partly”, so that leaves room for personal responsibility.

I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.

Should take personal responsibility and not blame the tool.

If your goal, like mine, is to live a life that is 100% guided by reason, which basically means (#2844) to never adopt ideas that have pending criticisms, you could use Veritula to identify ideas of yours that have pending criticisms so you can either reject those ideas or address the criticisms.

To that end, I suggest you submit a single idea you are confident is correct, and then try your hardest to criticize it. Depending on the idea, I may join you.

It’s a good goal to perfect an idea to the point you’ve mastered it, addressed all objections, understand the objections better than your opponents, etc.

If this sounds up your alley, I recommend starting with something easy. Zelalem tried writing a summary of fallibilism which, after 13 revisions, still contains mistakes.