Veritula – Meta
#3436·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 days agoWhat if Veritula charges the card immediately and holds the funds?
That seems like a tough sell. Users might not be willing to spend money without knowing whether anyone will submit any criticisms.
#3431·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 days agoThe bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.
What if Veritula charges the card immediately and holds the funds?
#3433·Dennis HackethalOP revised 6 days agoCouldn’t I let the initial authorization expire and then re-authorize the card?
Maybe, but what if re-authorization fails? Then nobody gets paid.
Couldn’t I re-authorize the card?
Couldn’t I let the initial authorization expire and then re-authorize the card?
#3431·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 days agoThe bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.
Couldn’t I re-authorize the card?
#2524·Dennis HackethalOP revised 2 months agoI’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline. Each counter-criticism could reset the deadline to give everyone ample time to respond.
The bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.
#3424·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 days agoRather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.
But that would mean that the first criticism receives a payout at the same time the last criticism receives a payout. That creates an incentive to ignore new bounties in favor of older ones.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether contributions are still worth making.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
#3423·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 days agoThat could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
#2811·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoFeature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
Rather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.
#3422·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 days agoBut that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.
That could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.
#3421·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 days agoThe initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per unproblematic criticism.
For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.
But that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.
#2811·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoFeature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
The initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per unproblematic criticism.
For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.
Idea: voice spaces, like Twitter spaces, except an AI generates a transcript and automatically turns it into a discussion tree, with criticism chains and all.
#3409·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 days agoBenjamin suggests making it clearer that you can use Veritula by yourself.
Done, see #3413.
Benjamin suggests making it clearer that you can use Veritula by yourself.
#3372·Dennis HackethalOP revised 13 days agoI’ve asked Gemini to explain it:
1. Auto-Closure (Insertion State)
When the user inputs an opening delimiter, the system immediately injects the corresponding closing delimiter and places the caret (cursor) between them.
Input: (
Buffer State: (|)
Logic: insert(opening_char) + insert(closing_char) + move_caret(-1)
2. Type-Through (Escape State)
If the caret is positioned immediately before a closing delimiter that was autopaired, and the user types that specific closing delimiter, the system suppresses the character insertion and instead advances the caret.
Context: [text|]
Input: ]
Buffer State: [text]| (Not [text]])
Logic: if (next_char == input_char) { move_caret(+1); prevent_default(); }
3. Atomic Deletion (Regression State)
If the caret is between an empty pair of delimiters, a backspace event deletes both the opening and closing characters simultaneously, returning the buffer to the pre-insertion state.
Context: (|)
Input: Backspace
Buffer State: |
Logic: if (prev_char == open && next_char == close) { delete_range(caret-1, caret+1); }
4. Selection Wrapping (Transformation State)
If a text range is selected (highlighted) and an opening delimiter is typed, the system wraps the selection rather than replacing it.
Context: |selected_text|
Input: [[
Buffer State: [[selected_text]]
Logic: surround_selection(input_pair)
5. Markdown-Specific Heuristics
Obsidian applies context-aware logic for Markdown syntax (e.g., * or _). It often checks word boundaries to determine if the user intends to bold/italicize or use a bullet point.
Context (Start of line): | + * + Space -> Bullet list (autopair disabled/consumed by formatting).
Context (Middle of line): word | + * -> word *|* (autopair enabled for italics).
I have implemented 1-4. Give it a try. I think 5 is out of scope for now but I may revisit it at some point. If auto-closing asterisks are a problem at the start of a line (when making lists), use a hyphen instead.