Search Ideas
2399 ideas match your query.:
That seems like a tough sell. Users might not be willing to spend money without knowing whether anyone will submit any criticisms.
What if Veritula charges the card immediately and holds the funds?
Maybe, but what if re-authorization fails? Then nobody gets paid.
Couldn’t I let the initial authorization expire and then re-authorize the card?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.
That could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.
But that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There’s an encoding bug affecting title previews.
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.
Some things wrong with flouride:
https://x.com/ChrisMasterjohn/status/1853076325067591812?s=20