Search Ideas

Legalising drugs will bring lawful competition to cartels and gangs, breaking geographical monopolies that perpetuate other (actual) criminal activity.

Define legal, please.

If they violate rights they should be punished by the law, that applies regardless of if they take drugs or not.

People on drugs violate the rights of others way more often.

All drugs should be legal because people have a right to do what they want, as long as it isn’t violating the rights of others.

Now that there are user profiles (#408), the search page can have an option to filter ideas by user. That way, we can see that user’s uncontroversial ideas, meaning ideas of his that he can rationally hold, and controversial ones, meaning ideas of his that he cannot rationally hold.

No need for new tabs. This feature could be integrated with the search page by filtering ideas by user. That page already has filters for problematic vs unproblematic ideas.

As I wrote in #4051, it doesn’t matter to me whether replication is necessary for evolution to take place. I’m open to the idea that it isn’t. But what I’d like instead is some argument why it couldn’t figure in the evolution that happens in the mind.

3) From what I’ve seen, the attempt to remove replication from evolution doesn’t actually remove it.

If you take some string of information and vary it, then by definition, only parts of it become different. Other parts are preserved. Even if you vary the string several times, the parts that didn’t change were still instantiated at each stage. So they still replicated. (As I recall, this is how Richard Dawkins defines what a gene is, in his book The Selfish Gene.)

Also, just by thinking about the string of information and how to vary it, you’ve already replicated the information. It now exists in its original medium and in your mind.

2) We can explain more if we use replicators. For example, memory and the origin of creativity just ‘fall out’ of the neo-Darwinian approach. Ideas in a single mind may have static vs dynamic replication strategies. All of that is lost without the notion of replication.

My response has always been that I don’t care whether replication is a necessary component of evolution, but that, 1), in the Popperian spirit, we shouldn’t break with other evolutionary theories unnecessarily. Genes and memes both replicate.

Some people (most notably Ella Hoeppner) have argued that replication isn’t necessary for evolution to take place. All you need is variation and selection.

My neo-Darwinian approach to the mind suggests that minds evolve knowledge through the imperfect replication of ideas.

Ah, but I can reproduce when I manually make the selection by clicking and dragging to cover the entire quote (and only the quote, nothing above or below).

There’s a way to get what you want: if you select some text in an idea before hitting its criticize or comment button, the selected text should always be inserted as a box quote.

Archiving this criticism for now, but if you’re still seeing any issues, let me know and I’ll take another look.

When you copy text for an inline quote, you wouldn’t want the box-quote formatting.

Done as of 19009b2. Discussions now have a link to search ideas, which points to the search page with that discussion already preselected in a new discussion dropdown.

How many times need something be replicated before the term 'replicator' should apply? If it's a matter of reliability, what defines reliable? Is "replicator-ness" on a continuum?

The distinction is where the knowledge for performing the replication is physically located.

Replication is: an entity in an environment being recreated or copied because of the environment (which can include the entity, as in the case of self-replication). The general case.

Self-replication is the special case of replication where: an entity is replicated as caused by aspects of itself alone. The knowledge for its replication is within it.

What is the distinction between replication and self-replication?

What is the distinction between replication and self-replication? Does anything "truly" self-replicate?

How Do Bounties Work?

Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.

Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.

How do I participate?

First, log in or sign up.

Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism on that idea.

That’s it – you’re in.

How do I get paid?

Each bounty enters a review period roughly five days after it starts (the exact date is shown on the bounty page). The review period lasts 24 hours. During this time, the bounty owner reviews submissions and rejects only those that don’t meet the stated terms.

To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:

1. Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
2. Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms when the review period begins.
3. Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
4. You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the review period ends.

The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.

Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.

How much will I get paid?

The bounty amount is prorated among all eligible submissions.

For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the bounty.

Fractions of cents are not paid out.

How do I run a bounty?

Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near bookmark, archive, etc.).

Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.

Your card is authorized, not charged, when the bounty starts.

The bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. Toward the end, a 24-hour review period begins. During this time, review submissions and reject those that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.

If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.

Can I fund an existing bounty?

Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is authorized but not charged.

If the bounty owner accepts any submissions during the review period, your card is charged the full authorization. If he rejects all submissions, your card is never charged.

Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.

Start a bounty today. Terms apply.

There is now a dedicated discussion on the topic of hard to vary. So I’m archiving this idea. But feel free to continue there.

Tyler recently wrote to me, in the context of a question he wanted to figure out, “would be good to Veritula this.” Cool seeing ‘Veritula’ used as a verb.

I have found myself using this term naturally, as in ‘starting a thread on Veritula’. I believe I’ve heard others say this, too.