Search Ideas
2356 ideas match your query.:
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
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.
What if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?
Have you seen: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/core-objectivist-values
Might have some more virtues to include.
Need a search form per discussion.
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.
That depends on a bunch of factors, including their relationship with the discussion owner, into which Veritula has no visibility.