Search Ideas

There’s a small issue related to previewing changes in code blocks: even when there are no changes yet, if the code overflows horizontally, the scroll shadow is shown through DOM manipulation, which in turn triggers the diffing library into thinking the user made a change.

So then the same code block is shown without any changes, under the ‘Changes’ tab, which is confusing. It should still just say ‘No changes’.

The diff view can’t handle the removal/replacement of entire code blocks yet. The removed block looks broken, the new block doesn’t show at all.

Valid. As of 7af3c7b, the site uses ‘USD’ throughout.

This is not exactly true. The business still needs to produce something people want to buy, at a price they will accept. This is separate from competition.

Another way to say that is: all businesses are in competition with all others at the broadest level.

If you like Snickers bars, but they suddenly 5x in price, it isn’t necessarily true that you will buy a different chocolate bar. You might go to the bakery instead, or use that money to put a little more fuel in your car.

This is not exactly true. The business still needs to produce something people want to buy, at a price they will accept. This is separate from competition.

Another way to say that is: all businesses are in competition with all others at the broadest level.

If you liked Snickers bars, but they suddenly 5x in price, it isn’t necessarily true that you will buy a different chocolate bar. You might go to the bakery instead, or use that money to put a little more fuel in your car.

Thank you, I think that is an important clarification.

I could indeed have been clearer. The point isn’t that using creativity to re-establish direction is the distinguishing feature. The distinction is the method of conflict resolution.

In a non-coercive, rational resolution, you take the distraction or impulse seriously, examine its content, and form a theory of what problem it’s signaling. Then you conjecture candidate solutions and select one to try. A common solution is to acknowledge the distraction and explicitly schedule it for later, which removes the unfinished business feeling it creates in the moment. Direction returns because the conflict got resolved.

In self-coercion, the method is irrational and coercive: you don’t examine the content of the distraction at all. You steamroll it or swat it away. You may regain direction, but the underlying problem remains unresolved.

Both methods cost creativity, but the coercive one causes more downstream problems (maybe even suffering), which then requires further creative expenditure to be resolved in the future.

I implemented this a while back.

X caches link previews, so old previews remain the same. But new previews feature the discussion title, see eg https://www.opengraph.xyz/url/https%3A%2F%2Fveritula.com%2Fdiscussions%2Fcriticisms-of-zcash.

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.