Search

Ideas that are…

Search Ideas


2395 ideas match your query.:

Maybe, but what if re-authorization fails? Then nobody gets paid.

#3435·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago·Criticism

Couldn’t I let the initial authorization expire and then re-authorize the card?

#3433·Dennis HackethalOP revised 1 day ago·Original #3432·CriticismCriticized1

Couldn’t I re-authorize the card?

#3432·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago·CriticismCriticized1

The bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.

#3431·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago·Criticism Battle tested

But that would mean that the first criticism receives a payout at the same time the last criticism receives a payout. That creates an incentive to ignore new bounties in favor of older ones.

#3430·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago·CriticismCriticized2

Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether contributions are still worth making.

#3428·Dennis HackethalOP revised 1 day ago·Original #3425·CriticismCriticized1

Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.

#3426·Dennis HackethalOP revised 1 day ago·Original #3425·CriticismCriticized1

Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.

#3425·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago·Criticized1

Rather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.

#3424·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago·Criticized1

That could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.

#3423·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago·CriticismCriticized1

But that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.

#3422·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago·CriticismCriticized1

The initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per unproblematic criticism.

For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.

#3421·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago·Criticized1

Yes, people could just start bounties on criticisms.

#3420·Dennis HackethalOP, 1 day ago

Idea: voice spaces, like Twitter spaces, except an AI generates a transcript and automatically turns it into a discussion tree, with criticism chains and all.

#3419·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 days ago

I think of it in terms of error correction: all fields where progress is possible allow us to identify and correct errors.

Empirical fields use facts. In empirical fields, error identification involves finding a discrepancy between theories and observation.

I’d consider aesthetics and economics at least partly empirical since you can make testable predictions. You can test an economic policy, for example, and see whether its predictions match (correspond to) outcomes. In music, things can sound unpleasant.

#3418·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days ago

No worries :-). Yeah, this is the part that confuses me about correspondence:

Which fields (apart from science) have "facts", and which consist merely of useful/adapted knowledge?

For instance, are there musical facts, economic facts, aesthetic facts, etc?

#3417·Erik Orrje, 3 days ago

Fixed as of bd7c1b6.

#3416·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days ago·Criticism

There’s an encoding bug affecting title previews.

#3415·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days ago·CriticismCriticized1Archived

Done, see #3413.

#3414·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days ago·Criticism

I don’t know anyone on Veritula. Can I still join?

Yes! Start by chiming in on one of the existing discussions or creating a new discussion. People will likely contribute.

If you have a topic you’d rather discuss in private, with a select few, make your discussion private. No one except the people you invite and admins will see it.

You can even have productive discussions by yourself. Not sure what to make for dinner? Want to move but not sure where? Start a discussion, submit some ideas, criticisms, and counter-criticisms, and see which ideas remain without any pending criticisms.

You’ll gain clarity to make rational decisions.

#3413·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days ago
#3411·Benjamin DaviesOP, 5 days ago·Criticism

Valid

#3410·Benjamin DaviesOP, 5 days ago

Benjamin suggests making it clearer that you can use Veritula by yourself.

#3409·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days ago·CriticismCriticized1Archived

Sorry for the late reply. I don’t know. I don’t think the aim of math is correspondence to physical facts like in science. But maybe it’s correspondence to mathematical facts.

#3405·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 days ago

Since this criticism (having to pay federal income tax) is true of any US state, I wouldn’t hold it against Nevada specifically unless you wish to rule out the US as a whole.

#3404·Dennis Hackethal, 7 days ago·Criticism