Search Ideas

I’m open to letting people contact me for serious cases (like accidentally posting their password or credit-card details). And then I can delete that content manually in the database.

Aside from that, we’d need to identify a case where simply criticizing a post isn’t enough. The criticism can state the reasons one would otherwise have for deleting a post.

Another problem with letting people delete posts is that others may have written a comment in the meantime, which they then can’t submit.

It can still mess up the continuity of discussions when the post to be deleted has parents.

Another choice: criticize one for being a duplicate. In the criticism, link to the original and instruct people to ignore the duplicate.

It does, but it has no universal way to semantically check why a criticism was generated this way. All it knows is that the criticism was generated as part of a superseding revision, but it doesn’t know the meaning of the contents of that revision.

But the system does have a way to identify automatically generated criticisms.

Yep. Was going to say this, too. The system has no semantic way to check the content of a criticism. So it has to assume that every unaddressed criticism is substantive.

The criticism "this is replicating less" should be generalized to "this allele/information has less causal power than an alternative." That has tremendous weight.

There is a natural preference for the one with more causal power, it is naturally selected over alternatives.

However, it is not clear to me how you are "weighing" these criticisms. So maybe my weighing isn't relevant to your weighing.

But sometimes revisions can be substantive, and OP could defend against one version, and in that case it should count toward the battle-tested badge!

But sometimes revisions can be substantive, and OP could defend against one version, and in that case it should count to the battle-tested badge!

I question whether previous versions of a criticism should contribute to the battle-tested count, as they do currently. Someone can make a spelling correction to the criticism, which creates the "supersedes" criticism of that previous version of the criticism, and that then contributes to the battle-tested count. This seems wrong, since that counter-criticism is not substantive, and even if it were, OP only generally responds to the latest version of a criticism (may not even have known about previous versions; all of this happened in: https://veritula.com/ideas/5089-knowledge-growth-such-as-in-genes-in-the-biospher).

Okay to allow for posts that have no comments or criticisms? Or only for posts on one's profile (perhaps also meeting that criterion)?

Deleting posts can really mess up the continuity of discussions, and allow for dishonesty.

No way to delete posts. Posted same thing twice by mistake (unexpected Chrome behavior). Choices are to leave the duplicate, which seems inelegant, or to revise it into another whole post, which I did, but that contributed to the issue in #5143 (creates an unclear green and red update post).

The term "death" is being used too vaguely. (Or else I am misunderstanding.) Do you think that a gene replicating and then dying (while its offspring survives) is "death?" A "refutation?"

Or do you mean "total elimination of the allele" as "death" or "refutation?"

My profile shows my revision to #5126 under Wall and under Activity, but not the post itself under the Wall. The revision is a jumble of red and green highlighted text (in this case, because the revision was significant), hard to read. Wall should only show latest versions of posts, not edits to them. Edits should go under Activity. And/or have the previous post versions viewable with the little arrows, as usual (and as done in the idea-focused view, after you click on the idea itself). Always show latest versions of ideas on the Wall so it's clear and easy to read.

In addition to scarcity, you have to assume unbounded growth of the population in an ecosystem, which does not happen.

Scarcity of resources should not be assumed. You want underlying necessity of the mechanism, not a strained analogy. There is no scarcity for idea resources.

The change in population of a replicator is non-specific to its content?

The capital allocated to a business is non-specific to its content? Conflating with the prices of a good?

But the extinction of a replicator by destroying its last instance does seem absolute, unlike the change in its population, which I suggest is non-specific to the content in #5133.

Yes, the quantity variable is instantiated in the collective physical substrate comprising all of the replicator instances.

Wouldn't it have to be instantiated in the overall system itself, which contains the replicators (among other things?)? Otherwise, how could that variable be a form of criticism by the system?

None of the replicators have that information. If that quantity variable exists, it's instantiated somewhere else.

How is the quantity of a replicator not based in the same medium as the replicator?