Search Ideas

Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own.

Typo: “in its own” should be ‘on its own’.

Well done. Now let’s practice addressing multiple criticisms at once. Here’s the first one:

[W]e first start with an idea/conjecture.

It need not be a conjecture. It could be a conclusion of some other train of thought, say. I recommend changing it from “idea/conjecture” to just ‘idea’.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in its own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

The gap between "it's" and "its" is big. My lack of paying attention to detail is becoming more and more obvious. In any case.

Making progress. Just a minor quibble next, but worth practicing with:

Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own.

There’s a typo: “it's” should be ‘its’ (no apostrophe).

See if you can revise your idea to address this criticism. Remember, there are two steps: changing the spelling and deselecting this criticism.

Ah. Now I get it!

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

I see that you’ve revised your idea, but you forgot to deselect the criticism (#1848) your revision addresses. As I wrote in that criticism (emphasis added):

Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.

But #1848 is still being rendered as a criticism of your revision, and your revision has the red label that says ‘Criticized (1)’ as a result.

When a revision addresses a criticism, you don’t want it to continue being marked as criticized by that criticism. That’s why the revision form lists criticisms, so you can uncheck the ones your revision addresses.

Try revising #1851 and remember to uncheck idea #1848 underneath the revision form. Uncheck this criticism (the one I am writing now) as well.

Once you’ve submitted the revision form, verify that #1848 is not being shown underneath the new revision.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate ideas.

Checking that box is useful when you want a revision to override the original.

If you check it, Veritula automatically posts a criticism of the original idea on your behalf. This way, if the original idea is a criticism, it gets ‘neutralized’, which is usually what you want when you revise a criticism.

Consider what would happen if you didn’t neutralize an old criticism: then the parent idea would show two pending criticisms.

#1833 (your idea) isn’t a criticism. Even if it were, it’s already been criticized (#1848). So checking the box isn’t strictly necessary. But feel free to check it and see what happens.

What of for "Supersedes previous version?" box? Would that be selected, since the new version would supersede the current version.

Decent start with some room for improvement. Let’s learn Veritula by doing. I’ll submit criticisms of your idea one by one and you can practice Veritula by addressing them. Here’s the first one:

Also, avoid duplicate criticism.

Yes, but we should avoid duplicate ideas in general.

Try revising #1833 to address this criticism. Click ‘Revise’, change ‘avoid duplicate criticism’ to ‘avoid duplicate ideas’, deselect this criticism underneath the form, then hit submit.

Make sure that at each step you understand why you’re performing that step. Ask first if you don’t.

Implemented as of 632c0d7.

There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:

    G
   /|\
 P1 P2 P3
   \|/
    I

This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.

For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.

Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show. That page should also scroll the target idea into view in case its preceded by too much context that would otherwise push it below the viewport.

This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.

The target idea should be scrolled into view. Otherwise, it might not always be visible, which could cause confusion. See eg #1811, which is preceded by a long idea and thus not visible on page load at the time of writing.

Implemented as of 55d02a7.

There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:

    G
   /|\
 P1 P2 P3
   \|/
    I

This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.

For parent ideas, cycle only through revisions that lead to the target idea. Communicate accordingly in the UI. For the target idea, its children, and any of its siblings’ children, cycle through all revisions.

Every idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread. This could just be ideas#show.

This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.

Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.

Might as well go with top-level ideas, too. That way, when there are other top-level ideas, they get filtered out. Good for zeroing in.

Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.

During testing, I realized this behavior is more confusing than I had initially thought.

There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:

    G
   /|\
 P1 P2 P3
   \|/
    I

This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.

Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.

Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.

This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.

There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:

    G
   /|\
 P1 P2 P3
   \|/
    I

Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.

Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.

This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.

Could you expand more on what you mean by the above question?

Ayn Rand claims that "[t]he virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as the only source of knowledge.

If I understand Veritula correctly, we first start with an idea/conjecture. We accept the idea as true until it has received a criticism. In which case, until the current criticism isn't resolved, the idea is tentatively seen as false and makes no sense to live in accordance to it. We don't do bulk criticism. Each criticism, even if they are related must be in it's own. Also, avoid duplicate criticism.

Irrationality may be all people had back in the day but that doesn’t make it rational.

This counter-criticism isn’t an invitation to continue this discussion at this point. See #1821.