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.

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?

Then I suggest revising #3968 so that it still captures the sentiment without containing factual falsehoods.

Fixed as of bbcefa8.

Should not autopair behind a word character.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Type 'foo'.
2. With the cursor behind the second 'o', hit single quote: '.
3. The text now reads foo'' but should only read foo'.

After a non-word character (eg linebreak, period, colon, semicolon etc) though, it should still autopair.

Undo/redo stack should preserve cursor position.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Start with empty textarea.
2. Type '('.
3. Cursor is now inside '(|)'.
4. Hit undo.
5. Hit redo.
6. Cursor is now behind '()|' but should be inside like in step 3.

By definition, there is nothing in the unknowable, since it can't be known.

This isn’t true. There are unknowable things. Look up uncomputable functions, see eg

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function#Uncomputable_functions_and_unsolvable_problems
• https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/2s2wgy/what_is_an_uncomputable_function/.

So there are things that computers like our brains can never access – there are fundamental, natural limitations.

In this context, I think of mysticism as restricting criticism and preventing error correction, ie creating a man-made barrier for reason. That’s different.

…often they are dealing with larger sums of money, which can make it harder to make higher returns…

Why is it harder to make higher returns for larger sums?

When an idea has nothing but a code block, there’s too much of a margin at the bottom, between the block and the border of the highlight.

This issue didn’t only occur on ideas#show.

Fixed as of a44c6c0.

There’s still an issue on ideas#show. When an idea has nothing but a code block, there’s too much of a margin at the bottom, between the block and the border of the highlight.

When the code overflows horizontally, a subtle inset shadow on the side shows that you can scroll:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

const posts = [
  {id: 1, title: "Understanding JavaScript Closures in Depth", url: "https://example.com/articles/javascript-closures-deep-dive"},
  {id: 2, title: "A Complete Guide to Modern Web Development Practices", url: "https://example.com/articles/modern-web-dev-guide"},
  {id: 3, title: "Exploring the Node.js Event Loop and Async Patterns", url: "https://example.com/articles/nodejs-event-loop"}
];

function formatPost(post) {
  return `${post.id}: ${post.title} -> ${post.url}`;
}

function prettyPrint(posts) {
  return posts.map(formatPost).join(" | ");
}

console.log(prettyPrint(posts));

Done as of cc1ab95.

Ruby example:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

def criticized? idea
  pending_criticisms(idea).any?
end

def pending_criticisms idea
  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| pending_criticisms(c).none? }
end

def criticisms idea
  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end

JS example (h/t ChatGPT):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

function criticized(idea) {
  return pendingCriticisms(idea).length > 0;
}

function pendingCriticisms(idea) {
  return criticisms(idea).filter(c => pendingCriticisms(c).length === 0);
}

function criticisms(idea) {
  return children(idea).filter(c => c.isCriticism);
}

Code blocks need syntax highlighting.

Veritula used to have this feature but I removed it when diffing changed.

Rand writes (p. 161):

The rational (the good) has nothing to gain from the irrational (the evil), except a share of its failures and crimes; the irrational has everything to gain from the rational: a share of its achievements and values. An industrialist does not need the help of a burglar in order to succeed; a burglar needs the industrialist’s achievement in order to exist at all. What collaboration is possible between them and to what end?

…

Consider the case of a business partnership: if one partner is honest and the other is a swindler, the latter contributes nothing to the success of the business; but the reputation of the former disarms the victims and provides the swindler with a wide-scale opportunity which he could not have obtained on his own.

I agree with her message that good shouldn’t collaborate with evil, but I don’t think this example works well. The reason somebody might go into business with a swindler is that they are tempted because the swindler does have something to offer them.

Maybe the swindler has a lot of money and offers to invest. The honest man might be too tempted to pass that up.

I do think the honest man should look for money elsewhere. But in such a case, it’s not true that he had “nothing” to gain from this partnership. It might be more accurate to say that there’s a net loss, or that overall the partnership is not worth it.

As I recall from some of the characters in Atlas Shrugged, Rand knew all this – it might just be a matter of wording things more clearly.