Search Ideas

Friendly IDs for discussions would be nice. With automatic redirects for numeric ID from legacy links.

All emails have unsubscribe links, but people shouldn’t be able to unsubscribe from system emails like password resets.

Done as of 9c14b22.

Fixed as of 985430e.

Newly added comments keep animating when hidden and then unhidden.

Duplicate of #453.

I should revisit this now that I have email infrastructure in place.

See #595. The form for new ideas is pushed to the very bottom of the discussion page. For long discussion, that means users won’t know where to submit new ideas.

Done as of 7ef69da.

Each activity should have a distinct HTML title. The browser history and search results in search engines all look the same…

Each activity should have an HTML title. The browser history and search results in search engines all look the same…

Fixed as of b555677.

Sure, philosophers and pedants do. But typically people use the word "know" in situations well short of being absolutely sure.

If we use the correspondence theory of truth, then truth consists of explanations that correspond "perfectly" to reality. In that sense all our statements are false: we don't have those explanations that perfectly correspond, all our actual statements are approximations, or deductions from approximations (1+1=2 is a deduction from a set of explanations, but that set is not entirely true - since the set is inconsistent and incomplete)

correspondance

typo

https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/error-prevention-error-correction-s-forgotten-b

Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be outstanding, it can’t have any outstanding criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

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

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

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

This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.

https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/physical-vs-moral-explanations

As a convenience, this checkbox is now checked automatically for criticisms.

What does “battle tested” mean?

One of @edwin-de-wit’s ideas recently got the blue label that says “battle tested” – well done, Edwin! – so he asked me what it means.

It means that the idea has at least three criticisms, all of which have been addressed.

The label is awarded automatically. It’s a tentative indicator of quality. Battle-tested ideas generally contain more knowledge than non-battle-tested ones.

When there are two conflicting ideas, each with no outstanding criticisms, go with the (more) battle-tested one. This methodology maps onto Popper’s notion of a critical preference.

The label is not an indicator of an idea’s future success, nor should it be considered a justification of an idea.

You can see all battle-tested ideas currently on Veritula on this page. Those are all the best, most knowledge-dense ideas on this site.

Your new comment notwithstanding, I invite you to be more critical of your English. I’ve pointed out several issues already (which, to your credit, you did fix), and you’ve since made more mistakes (eg see #1729, and in a recent DM you wrote “criticizems”). A typo of that magnitude plausibly indicates deeper issues.

Again, I don’t mean to get too personal here – forgive me if that’s how it comes across.

[E]very emotional sensation — including urges — arises from problems […]

If that’s true, a conflict is behind every positive emotion as well. What’s the conflict behind joy, say?

(If you’re wondering why I’m marking this a criticism even though it’s phrased as a question: it means that a satisfactory answer would address the criticism; such an answer should itself be marked a criticism.)

For example, if one of your core value is non‑coercion […]

Should be plural ‘values’

This should be marked a criticism.

I pointed out a circularity in #1655. Instead of resolving the circularity, you posted another idea repeating the same circularity. That makes no sense.

Even if I was somehow mistaken about there being a circularity, repeating the same idea doesn’t correct that.

Please read the discussion ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ in its entirety before continuing here.