Search

Ideas that are…

Search Ideas


2219 ideas match your query.:

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.

#3109​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

How would you notify participants of changes to the privacy setting?

#3108​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

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*

#3107​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

Good call. I made the pagination ‘sticky’ as of 1e7a85d. Archiving this but let me know if something isn’t working right.

#3106​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

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.

#3104​·​Dennis Hackethal, 4 months ago

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.

#3102​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

If the discussion owner accidentally removes someone and then adds them back right away, it sucks if all the associated records are still gone.

#3101​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

Those could be deleted when the user is removed.

#3100​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

What if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?

#3099​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

Have you seen: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/core-objectivist-values

Might have some more virtues to include.

#3091​·​Dennis Hackethal, 4 months ago

Need a search form per discussion.

#3088​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

This functionality is pretty standard across apps. You can be removed from Discord servers, Telegram channels, etc without warning or reason at any time. People generally know and accept this. If they still put in effort, that’s on them.

#3083​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

That depends on a bunch of factors, including their relationship with the discussion owner, into which Veritula has no visibility.

#3082​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

But then invitees might not put as much effort into those discussions.

#3081​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

That risk could be clearly communicated in the UI.

#3080​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

But that sucks. Maybe someone works hard and submits a bunch of ideas only to lose access to them all.

#3079​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized2Archived

Maybe you remove them because you don’t even want them to be able to see anything.

#3078​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

There’d probably be a bunch of edge cases with this approach. For example, others would still be able to comment on those ideas, and the comments would have to be hidden from OPs. Which begs the question of how that impacts the displayed criticism count… And so on.

#3077​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

If you later realize that adding someone was a mistake, you should be able to correct that mistake.

#3076​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismArchived

Permanent access: once added, you can’t remove them.

#3075​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

They could keep read-only access to the discussion but can’t add new ideas or change existing ideas.

#3074​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

They could keep access to their own ideas but not see others’.

#3073​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

There could be hard cutoff: they lose access to everything, including their own ideas in that discussion.

#3072​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​Criticism Battle testedArchived

What happens if you add a user to a private discussion, they submit a bunch of ideas, and then you remove them?

#3071​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago​·​CriticismCriticized1Archived

My critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.

Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.

A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.

So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.

You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable

#3069​·​Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months ago​·​Original #3050​·​ Battle tested