Search ideas

You’d know it’s a DDoS long before reviewing all the contents. That amount of criticism in a short time is suspicious, so you’d investigate for signs of coordination. Companies investigating actual DDoSes don’t need to review every single request to know they’re being DDoS’ed. And no reasonable person could blame them if a few good requests get dropped during their defense efforts.

But how do I know that’s what’s going on before I get through the content of the 1000 criticisms or whatever. There could be a valid one in there! Maybe from someone unaffiliated with the attack.

Attack means bad faith, which is a type of counter-criticism.

How do you not make yourself vulnerable to DDoS attacks on your life and actions under this system?

Veritula should have some way to indicate agreement; some way to indicate that a particular thread of a discussion is resolved, at least for the time being.

But not everyone will always use the platform in an ideal way, and I don’t want to make it easier for issues to compound.

That only happens if people submit bulk ideas, and people shouldn’t do that anyway.

Reactions can be ambiguous. It wouldn’t always be clear which part of an idea someone is reacting to.

That limits the scope of the problem but doesn’t eliminate it. A single recipient could still react in a distracting way.

Revisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes over multiple screens.

Revisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes with multiple screens.

Reactions could be limited to the recipient of a comment.

People could wrongly think they have epistemological relevance. For example, they might adopt an idea that has pending criticism just because it got positive reactions.

How about emoji reactions?

Maybe somebody just forgot to reply or doesn’t know what to say.

If there’s no criticism, that implies agreement.

Veritula should have some way to indicate agreement.

By the time someone receives an email notification, they will probably have forgotten whatever they wrote originally that prompted someone to reply to them.

Dirk approves of your comment.

The rival theories and clashes sound like competition between genes – or more precisely, between the theories those genes embody.

Basically, genes contain guesses (in a non-subjective sense) for how to spread through the population at the expense of their rivals. Those guesses are met with selection pressure and competition.

How could we integrate that vision with Popper's definition (paraphrased): a tension, inconsistency, or unmet explanatory demand that arises when a theory clashes with observations, background assumptions, or rival theories, thereby calling for conjectural solutions and critical tests.

A gene doesn’t have problems in any conscious sense, but it always faces the problem of how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.

Maybe that answers your question, Erik.

Aaron Stupple, author of a parenting guide called The Sovereign Child, talks about how to raise your kids without making them do things they don’t want to do. I tell Stupple I wish I’d read his book when my son and daughter were young, and I mean it, Stupple strikes me as wise. But it bothers me that Stupple was inspired by Deutsch, who has no kids.

https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/but-you-re-not-a-parent

I don't think a gene has problems. It does not have ideas.

Well, Tom wouldn’t drop the ‘a’ anyway because he’s British.