Search Ideas
915 ideas match your query.:
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.
Rather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.
That could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.
But that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.
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.
There’s an encoding bug affecting title previews.
Benjamin suggests making it clearer that you can use Veritula by yourself.
I can take this opportunity to replace manual markdown with a proper text editor. Then there’s no need for autopaired brackets.
The editor will need to support:
- Automatic links to ideas like #123
- Links to @mentions like @dennis-hackethal*
- Safe link formatting
- Disabling of turbo links
- Namespaced footnotes
- Custom blockquote format
- Protection against XSS
- Retention of formatting when pasting
[Force is] cheaper than paying jurors their market rate for their time.
I think the best justification is legitimacy: people accept a court decision better if it was made by their peers, instead of a government employee. That is important in places where the government is not trusted, or trustworthy.
Trial by jury has been central to English Common Law legal systems “since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” So you could say it is simply a matter of tradition.
If the legislature approves, doesn’t that mean the force is not arbitrary? Since whatever they decide goes through an objective approval process.
You actually want people who don’t care. You need neutrality.
I’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).
As of c08f508, the footer automatically hides and shows based on scrolling behavior.
Try it out and let me know if this doesn’t help.
mustn’t
Maybe this is the non-native speaker in me, but do you mean ‘can’t’? I thought ‘mustn’t’ means ‘may not’: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/must_not
[Jury duty is] part of your contract with the country.
… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
By that ‘logic’, we never could have abolished slavery. What a stupid argument.
The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.
Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts suck at persuading people to be jurors.
Who would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
Why does John Doe deserve your best effort? He’s a random stranger to you. Why should you care what happens to him? What has he done to deserve your effort and consideration?
This sounds like sacrifice/altruism.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
I think [the inner workings of the justice system are] goddamned impressive. And humbling. And when I get a summons to serve? I go. Because both “the People of the State” and that “John Doe” deserve my best effort. I would expect it if I was ever on the wrong side of that -vs- and I would hope that you would too.
If jury participation were voluntary, “it would just be the same batch of NCIS fans deciding every case.” (Source)