Activity Feed
Maybe somebody just forgot to reply or doesn’t know what to say.
Not necessarily. Maybe somebody just forgot to reply or doesn’t know what to say.
How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea, and it has a note attached to it stating that it contains such a criticism. Should I open the letter? It has no pending counter-criticisms, after all.
How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea, and it has a note attached to it stating that it contains such a criticism. Should I open the letter? It has no pending counter-criticisms, after all. Have we constructed an unreadable letter?
How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. Should I read it?
How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea, and it has a note attached to it stating that it contains such a criticism. Should I open the letter? It has no pending counter-criticisms, after all.
You’d know it’s a DDoS long before reviewing all the contents. That amount of criticism in a short time is suspicious, so you’d investigate for signs of coordination. Companies investigating actual DDoSes don’t need to review every single request to know they’re being DDoS’ed. And no reasonable person could blame them if a few good requests get dropped during their defense efforts.
You’d know it’s a DDoS long before reviewing all the contents. That amount of criticism in a short time is suspicious, so you’d investigate for signs of coordination. Companies investigating actual DDoSes don’t need to review every single request to know they’re being DDoS’ed. And no otherwise reasonable person could blame them if a few good requests get dropped during their defense efforts.
#2179·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoHow about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. Should I read it?
Yeah. You wouldn’t even know that what the criticism is before reading it.
How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. What do I do?
How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. Should I read it?
How about I have one known idea: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. What do I do?
How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. What do I do?
#2175·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoHow about I have one known idea: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. What do I do?
The premise sounds contrived because you couldn’t have only that one idea in isolation. You’d have to know about letters, and reading them, and criticisms, and so on.
#2140·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoDecision-Making on Veritula
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
How about I have one known idea: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. What do I do?
#2173·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoBut how do I know that’s what’s going on before I get through the content of the 1000 criticisms or whatever. There could be a valid one in there! Maybe from someone unaffiliated with the attack.
You’d know it’s a DDoS long before reviewing all the contents. That amount of criticism in a short time is suspicious, so you’d investigate for signs of coordination. Companies investigating actual DDoSes don’t need to review every single request to know they’re being DDoS’ed. And no reasonable person could blame them if a few good requests get dropped during their defense efforts.
#2172·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoAttack means bad faith, which is a type of counter-criticism.
But how do I know that’s what’s going on before I get through the content of the 1000 criticisms or whatever. There could be a valid one in there! Maybe from someone unaffiliated with the attack.
#2171·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoHow do you not make yourself vulnerable to DDoS attacks on your life and actions under this system?
Attack means bad faith, which is a type of counter-criticism.
#2140·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoDecision-Making on Veritula
Expanding on #2112…
If an idea has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.
If an idea does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?
How do you not make yourself vulnerable to DDoS attacks on your life and actions under this system?
Veritula should have some way to indicate agreement.
Veritula should have some way to indicate agreement; some way to indicate that a particular thread of a discussion is resolved, at least for the time being.
#2167·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoThat only happens if people submit bulk ideas, and people shouldn’t do that anyway.
But not everyone will always use the platform in an ideal way, and I don’t want to make it easier for issues to compound.
#2166·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoReactions can be ambiguous. It wouldn’t always be clear which part of an idea someone is reacting to.
That only happens if people submit bulk ideas, and people shouldn’t do that anyway.
Reactions can be ambiguous. It wouldn’t always be clear which part of an idea someone is reacting to.
#2161·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoReactions could be limited to the recipient of a comment.
That limits the scope of the problem but doesn’t eliminate it. A single recipient could still react in a distracting way.
Revisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes with multiple screens.
Revisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes over multiple screens.
Revisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes with multiple screens.
#2160·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoPeople could wrongly think they have epistemological relevance. For example, they might adopt an idea that has pending criticism just because it got positive reactions.
Reactions could be limited to the recipient of a comment.
People could wrongly think they have epistemological relevance. For example, they might adopt an idea that has pending criticism just because it got positive reactions.
Maybe somebody just forgot to reply or doesn’t know what to say.