Dennis Hackethal’s Profile

Dennis Hackethal archived idea #1789 along with any revisions.

Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #2717.

Feature to collapse all criticized ideas of a discussion? Useful for todo lists.

#2717·Dennis HackethalOP revised 3 months ago

Archiving covers this.

13 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal archived idea #2669 along with any revisions.

13 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal revised idea #3062 and marked it as a criticism.

13 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3978.

The sentiment of the sentence stands. Even with uncomputable functions, one shouldn't waste time in trying to solve them.

#3978·Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 13 days ago

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

13 days ago·‘Known, Unknown and Unknowable’

Dennis Hackethal archived idea #3975 along with any revisions.

14 days ago·‘autopair.js’

Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3975.

Should not autopair behind a word character.

Steps to reproduce:

Type 'foo'.

With the cursor behind the second 'o', hit single quote: '.

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.

#3975·Dennis HackethalOP, 14 days ago

Fixed as of bbcefa8.

14 days ago·‘autopair.js’

Dennis Hackethal submitted criticism #3975.

Should not autopair behind a word character.

Steps to reproduce:

Type 'foo'.
With the cursor behind the second 'o', hit single quote: '.
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.

14 days ago·‘autopair.js’

Dennis Hackethal submitted criticism #3974.

Undo/redo stack should preserve cursor position.

Steps to reproduce:

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

14 days ago·‘autopair.js’

Dennis Hackethal started a discussion titled ‘autopair.js’.

Issue tracker for the autopairing + typethrough package at https://github.com/dchacke/autopair.js

14 days ago

Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #3968.

By definition, there is nothing in the unknowable, since it can't be known. One can rationally and with confidence move on and not even entertain anything that claims to be 'beyond human understanding.'

#3968·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 15 days ago

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

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.

14 days ago·‘Known, Unknown and Unknowable’

Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #3960.

Money is worth more today than in the future. We would all rather have $1,000 today than $1,000 in a year's time.

But how much more valuable is money now vs a year from now? Would you take $1000 now or $1100 a year from now?

Deciding what rate of return is acceptable to you is important for determining the rough degree of effort that will be required and what kinds of investments are worth pursuing. Someone trying to make 4%+ per year on their money has a much simpler task than someone trying to make 18%+.

Your answer will depend on what you are trying to achieve and what opportunities and knowledge you possess. Most prominent value investors want a minimum 10% return per year (often they are dealing with larger sums of money, which can make it harder to make higher returns).

This desired rate is what is used as the 'discount rate' when making a 'discounted cashflow' valuation of an asset.

My discount rate is 15%, as my goal is to make 15%+ per year in perpetuity.

#3960·Benjamin DaviesOP, 15 days ago

…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?

14 days ago·‘Finance and Investing’

Dennis Hackethal updated discussion ‘Finance and Investing’.

The ‘About’ section changed as follows:

14 days ago

Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #3953. The revision addresses idea #3955.

16 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3953.

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.

#3953·Dennis HackethalOP, 18 days ago

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

16 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal archived idea #3950 along with any revisions.

16 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3953.

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.

#3953·Dennis HackethalOP, 18 days ago

Fixed as of a44c6c0.

16 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3951.

Done as of cc1ab95.

Ruby example:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
ruby
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
javascript
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);
}

#3951·Dennis HackethalOP, 18 days ago

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.

18 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal commented on criticism #3950.

Code blocks need syntax highlighting.

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

#3950·Dennis HackethalOP, 18 days ago

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
javascript
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));

18 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #3950.

Code blocks need syntax highlighting.

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

#3950·Dennis HackethalOP, 18 days ago

Done as of cc1ab95.

Ruby example:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
ruby
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
javascript
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);
}

18 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal submitted criticism #3950.

Code blocks need syntax highlighting.

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

18 days ago·‘Veritula – Meta’

Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #3947.

Summary

People are losing their ability to think and act on principles. But they need principles to set long-range goals and make decisions. Without them, people become their own destroyers. Modern philosophy is to blame because it attacks reason.

To stop this suicidal trend, we need to understand the following rules about principles and the relationship between principles and goals:

First, when two men or groups are in conflict while having the same basic principles, the more consistent one will win.

Since they are in conflict, at least one of them must be inconsistent. So the one with the clearer vision of his goal, who more consistently works toward it, will win. The less consistent one just hastens his adversary’s victory and becomes weaker in the process.

This dynamic applies regardless of the merits of their shared principles.

Example: republicans vs democrats. Both agree that the government should interfere with the economy. They just disagree on implementation details. Democrats are more consistently committed to growing government power; the republicans just end up “me-too’ing” them. Recent example.

As a result, government control has been growing over the decades. It will continue to grow until the communists replace socialists and ‘achieve’ “universal immolation”.

This trend can seem inevitable. Some people mistake it for historicism, but it can be reversed by a change of basic principles.

Second, when two men or groups collaborate while having different basic principles, the more evil or irrational one will win.

Mixing opposing basic principles favors bad ones and drives out the good ones. “What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?”

When good and evil collaborate, it hurts good and helps evil. The good has nothing to gain from evil, while evil stands to gain everything from the good.

Example: collaboration between an honest businessman and a swindler. The swindler does not contribute to the success of the business; the honest man’s reputation ends up luring in more victims than the swindler could have fooled on his own.

Another example: membership of the Soviet Union in the UN. The resulting collaboration between the West and the Soviet Union gave the latter unearned respect, moral sanction, and access to resources. As a result, the Western world has been swallowed by “cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt…”

Third, defining opposite basic principles clearly and openly helps rationality; hiding or evading them helps irrationality.

The rational side of a conflict wants to be understood. It’s in harmony with reality, so it has nothing to hide. But the irrational side “has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals.”

The good, the rational must be actively upheld; the bad, the irrational is achieved only by default, by not acting. Construction is hard; destruction is easy.

Lessons

Adhere to your principles with consistency.

Never mix opposing basic principles! Leave irrational/evil people to the consequences of their errors.

Be open and transparent; don’t hide things.

#3947·Dennis HackethalOP revised 19 days ago

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.

18 days ago·‘The Anatomy of Compromise Book Club’

Dennis Hackethal revised idea #3944.

Summary

People are losing their ability to think and act on principles. But they need principles to set long-range goals and make decisions. Without them, people become their own destroyers. Modern philosophy is to blame because it attacks reason.

To stop this suicidal trend, we need to understand the following rules about principles and the relationship between principles and goals:

First, when two men or groups are in conflict while having the same basic principles, the more consistent one will win.

Since they are in conflict, at least one of them must be inconsistent. So the one with the clearer vision of his goal, who more consistently works toward it, will win. The less consistent one just hastens his adversary’s victory and becomes weaker in the process.

This dynamic applies regardless of the merits of their shared principles.

Example: republicans vs democrats. Both agree that the government should interfere with the economy. They just disagree on implementation details. Democrats are more consistently committed to growing government power; the republicans just end up “me-too’ing” them. Recent example.

As a result, government control has been growing over the decades. It will continue to grow until the communists replace socialists and ‘achieve’ “universal immolation”.

This trend can seem inevitable. Some people mistake it for historicism, but it can be reversed by a change of basic principles.

Second, when two men or groups collaborate while having different basic principles, the more evil or irrational one will win.

Mixing opposing basic principles favors bad ones and drives out the good ones. “What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?”

When good and evil collaborate, it hurts good and helps evil. The good has nothing to gain from evil, while evil stands to gain everything from the good.

Example: collaboration between an honest businessman and a swindler. The swindler does not contribute to the success of the business; the honest man’s reputation ends up luring in more victims than the swindler could have fooled on his own.

Another example: membership of the Soviet Union in the UN. The resulting collaboration between the West and the Soviet Union gave the latter unearned respect, moral sanction, and access to resources. As a result, the Western world has been swallowed by “cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt…”

Third, defining opposite basic principles clearly and openly helps rationality; hiding or evading them helps irrationality.

The rational side of a conflict wants to be understood. It’s in harmony with reality, so it has nothing to hide. But the irrational side “has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals.”

The good, the rational must be actively upheld; the bad, the irrational is achieved only by default, by not acting. Construction is hard; destruction is easy.

Lessons

Adhere to your principles with consistency.

Never mix opposing basic principles! Leave irrational/evil people to the consequences of their errors.

Be open and transparent; don’t hide things.