Dennis Hackethal
@dennis.hackethal·Joined Jun 2024·Ideas
Founder Veritula.
Author. Software engineer. Ex Apple. Translator of The Beginning of Infinity.
dennishackethal.com
#2028·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 months agoOnly days prior, Tom Hyde had retweeted Francisco Goya’s 1799 painting ‘The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters’.
It’s not a painting. According to Wikipedia, it’s an aquatint.
Fixed as of v3.
Only days prior, Tom Hyde had retweeted Francisco Goya’s 1799 painting ‘The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters’.
It’s not a painting. According to Wikipedia, it’s an aquatint.
#2021·Amaro Koberle, 9 months agoWas there any other reason besides the claim that my argument rests on the “physical” nature of private property? If not, I believe I have already addressed that criticism. I don’t actually think property rests on physicality, but rather on whether something is zero-sum or non-zero-sum, physical or not. A useful concept in this context is “rivalry” in economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
#2017·Amaro Koberle, 9 months agoI 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.
Duplicate of #1421.
#2017·Amaro Koberle, 9 months agoI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
#2003·Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months agoAny filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying
n / mfor the count, wherenis the number of rendered criticisms andmis 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.
How will people know what n / m means?
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.
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.
#1997·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 months agoSee #1992: “The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.”
See #1999: “People could easily miss or forget that.”
#1992·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 months agoThe instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.
People could easily miss or forget that.
#1986·Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months agoBug: 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.
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.
#1995·Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months agoIf 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.
See #1992: “The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.”
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.
#1993·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 months agoFor all ideas, the total number of pending criticisms (if any) should always be shown, even if they are not all being rendered.
If no criticisms are being displayed, yet the label says an idea has n pending criticisms, that might confuse people.
#1986·Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months agoBug: 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.
For all ideas, the total number of pending criticisms (if any) should always be shown, even if they are not all being rendered.
#1989·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 months agoThat could mislead people into thinking a revision has no pending criticisms.
The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.
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.
#1988·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 months agoWhen cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.
That could mislead people into thinking a revision has no pending criticisms.
#1986·Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months agoBug: 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.
When cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.