Search Ideas
2086 ideas match your query.:
Fallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false. As a result, we inevitably make mistakes; all of our knowledge is tentative.
Nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. No knowledge is beyond revision, even if it claims to be.
Knowledge grows by correcting errors in our knowledge. We correct errors by guessing solutions to problems and then criticizing and testing those proposed solutions.
We should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the means of error correction.
This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.
There was no need for this revision. #3047 already polished everything. I’m restoring that version.
Before you revise an idea, be sure to check if it has already been revised.
When you do decide to revise an idea, be sure to check off addressed criticisms in the same revision.
#3048 slipped through the cracks somehow.
You don’t need to do anything else for this idea for now.
This is done as of 9b5788c but it’s still free for now. Will make it a paid feature after some more testing and polishing.
What do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
What do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
Integrity: The refusal to permit a breach between one's best ideas and one's actions.
Phrasing it in terms of ‘best’ ideas could be tricky. Recall that we don’t (currently) know how to classify ideas as better/best/worse/worst.
I suggest speaking of one’s convictions instead.
Rationality: The commitment to the ongoing deliberate use of conjecture and criticism.
This is vague and compatible with irrational uses of conjecture and criticism. People can use them to come up with evasions and lies.
Would it make sense to refer to #2281 instead?
Moral Ambitiousness
The only quote I could (quickly) find is lowercase: https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pride.html#order_2:~:text=by%20the%20term%3A%20%22-,moral%20ambitiousness,-.%22%20It%20means%20that
I recommend getting in the habit of copy/pasting from original sources, and linking them.
Is there overlap between conscientiousness and thoroughness? Is being thorough part of being conscientious?
The Effective Altruism forum has an interesting way to react to posts.
There’s an ‘Agree’ button and a ‘Disagree’ button. Those are apparently anonymous. Then separately, there’s a button to ‘Add a reaction’ of either ‘Heart’, ‘Helpful’, ‘Insightful’, ‘Changed my mind’, or ‘Made me laugh’. And those are apparently not anonymous.
I wonder why they chose to make some reactions anonymous but not others. I don’t think I’d want a ‘Heart’ or ‘Made me laugh’ button, they seem too social-network-y. Also, ‘Heart’ seems like a duplicate of ‘Agree’. But ‘Insightful’ and ‘Changed my mind’ seem epistemologically relevant. Maybe ‘Helpful’, too.
If I did decide to go with ‘Agree’ and ‘Disagree’ buttons, I wouldn’t make them anonymous, though.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the change.
On second thought, the reason for the privacy change may well be related to the reason for any changes to the title or about section, so doing it in the same notification might actually be clearer for users.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.
A change to the privacy setting is notable enough that it requires a dedicated notification independent of any changes to a discussion title or about section.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the activity.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants.
How would you notify participants of changes to the privacy setting?
Preview links of discussions should show the name of the discussion being linked.
See eg https://x.com/agentofapollo/status/1991252721618547023
h/t @benjamin-davies
Good call. I made the pagination ‘sticky’ as of 1e7a85d. Archiving this but let me know if something isn’t working right.
Yeah I’d consider discipline irrational because it means one part of you coerces another.
Having said that, there could be value in learning how to deal productively with situations where you cannot avoid coercion. Like the government forcing you to do your taxes, which you will only do if you translate that external coercion into internal coercion. Nobody else can really coerce you, only you can coerce yourself. It would be nice to do this productively and also in a way that doesn’t practice/internalize self-coercion. And it should be rare. I don’t think basic chores qualify.
In later implementations, I could maybe implement a ‘soft’ delete or grace period. Or I could keep the associated records and rely on authorization rules to prevent access. But as of right now, that’s a premature consideration.
If the discussion owner accidentally removes someone and then adds them back right away, it sucks if all the associated records are still gone.
Those could be deleted when the user is removed.