Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Dennis Hackethal

@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024

Activity

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #2017.

I don’t think the issue hinges on whether something is physically scarce, whatever that’s supposed to mean. After all, all information is physical, as David Deutsch likes to emphasize. The real distinction is this: stealing someone’s digital money deprives them of the ability to use it, while copying someone’s novel does not prevent the author from accessing or using their own work. The former is zero-sum; the latter is not.

#2017·Amaro Koberle, about 1 month ago

Duplicate of #1421.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #2017.

I don’t think the issue hinges on whether something is physically scarce, whatever that’s supposed to mean. After all, all information is physical, as David Deutsch likes to emphasize. The real distinction is this: stealing someone’s digital money deprives them of the ability to use it, while copying someone’s novel does not prevent the author from accessing or using their own work. The former is zero-sum; the latter is not.

#2017·Amaro Koberle, about 1 month ago

The latter is still zero-sum because the author gets nothing in exchange for the work they put in upfront, but expected to get something, and made the distribution of their work contingent upon this expectation being fulfilled.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #2012.

The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons [as in pre-Einsteinian physics] or to a curvature of space and time.

Steven Weinberg, Graviation and Cosmology (p. 147), John Wiley, 1972. As quoted in chapter 1.

I’m getting conflicting results online for this quote. Some sources that quote the same passage say singular ‘effect’, others use the plural like Deutsch does.

I don’t have access to the original text, so I can’t say for sure if this is possibly a slight misquote or if different people are just quoting different editions.

The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons [as in pre-Einsteinian physics] or to a curvature of space and time.

Steven Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (p. 147), John Wiley, 1972. As quoted in chapter 1.

I’m getting conflicting results online for this quote. Some sources that quote the same passage say singular ‘effect’, others use the plural like Deutsch does.

I don’t have access to the original text, so I can’t say for sure if this is possibly a slight misquote or if different people are just quoting different editions.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #2011.

The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons [as in pre-Einsteinian physics] or to a curvature of space and time.

Steven Weinbert Graviation and Cosmology (p. 147), John Wiley, 1972. As quoted in chapter 1.

I’m getting conflicting results online for this quote. Some sources that quote the same passage say singular ‘effect’, others use the plural like Deutsch does.

I don’t have access to the original text, so I can’t say for sure if this is possibly a slight misquote or if different people are just quoting different editions.

The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons [as in pre-Einsteinian physics] or to a curvature of space and time.

Steven Weinberg, Graviation and Cosmology (p. 147), John Wiley, 1972. As quoted in chapter 1.

I’m getting conflicting results online for this quote. Some sources that quote the same passage say singular ‘effect’, others use the plural like Deutsch does.

I don’t have access to the original text, so I can’t say for sure if this is possibly a slight misquote or if different people are just quoting different editions.

  Dennis Hackethal submitted criticism #2011.

The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons [as in pre-Einsteinian physics] or to a curvature of space and time.

Steven Weinbert Graviation and Cosmology (p. 147), John Wiley, 1972. As quoted in chapter 1.

I’m getting conflicting results online for this quote. Some sources that quote the same passage say singular ‘effect’, others use the plural like Deutsch does.

I don’t have access to the original text, so I can’t say for sure if this is possibly a slight misquote or if different people are just quoting different editions.

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #1990. The revision addresses idea #1989.

When cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.

Any filtered idea should always display only the count of shown criticisms.

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #2003. The revision addresses idea #2005.

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

That way, there should never be any confusion as to a mismatch between the total vs rendered number of pending criticisms.

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

An explanation could accompany the n / m display, like a title on hover.

That way, there should never be any confusion as to a mismatch between the total vs rendered number of pending criticisms.

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #2003.

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

That way, there should never be any confusion as to a mismatch between the total vs rendered number of pending criticisms.

#2003·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

How will people know what n / m means?

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #1998.

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

That way, there’s never any confusion as to 1) whether a filtered idea has any pending criticisms, 2) a filtered idea having more criticisms than are being rendered.

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

That way, there should never be any confusion as to a mismatch between the total vs rendered number of pending criticisms.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1989.

That could mislead people into thinking a revision has no pending criticisms.

That could mislead people into thinking a revision has no pending criticisms, which would be bad for error correction.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1997.

See #1992: “The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.”

#1997·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

See #1999: “People could easily miss or forget that.”

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1992.

The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.

#1992·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

People could easily miss or forget that.

  Dennis Hackethal commented on criticism #1986.

Bug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same revision.

#1986·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

That way, there’s never any confusion as to 1) whether a filtered idea has any pending criticisms, 2) a filtered idea having more criticisms than are being rendered.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1995.

If no criticisms are being displayed, yet the label says an idea has n pending criticisms, that might confuse people. More generally, any mismatch between rendered vs counted criticisms could confuse people.

#1995·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

See #1992: “The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.”

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1994.

If no criticisms are being displayed, yet the label says an idea has n pending criticisms, that might confuse people.

If no criticisms are being displayed, yet the label says an idea has n pending criticisms, that might confuse people. More generally, any mismatch between rendered vs counted criticisms could confuse people.

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1993.

For all ideas, the total number of pending criticisms (if any) should always be shown, even if they are not all being rendered.

#1993·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

If no criticisms are being displayed, yet the label says an idea has n pending criticisms, that might confuse people.

  Dennis Hackethal commented on criticism #1986.

Bug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same revision.

#1986·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

For all ideas, the total number of pending criticisms (if any) should always be shown, even if they are not all being rendered.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1989.

That could mislead people into thinking a revision has no pending criticisms.

#1989·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1988 and unmarked it as a criticism.

When cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.

When cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1988.

When cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.

#1988·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month ago

That could mislead people into thinking a revision has no pending criticisms.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1986.

Bug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same revision.

#1986·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month ago

When cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1985.

Bug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same idea.

Bug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same revision.

  Dennis Hackethal submitted criticism #1985.

Bug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same idea.

  Dennis Hackethal started a discussion that has since been removed.