Search Ideas

But this thread, about my English possibly being a problem, doesn’t seem like a relevant or substantive criticism.

As I’ve pointed out previously, I wouldn’t try to assign strengths (or ‘substantiveness’) to arguments.

Any criticism no matter how small destroys its target decisively if unaddressed. Whether or not its decisive is determined by whether or not there are any counter-criticisms, not by assigning some strength score (a remnant of justificationism). A criticism is decisive as long as there are no counter-criticisms. In the absence of counter-criticisms, how could it not be decisive?

In the current situation, this epistemology is actually to your benefit because, if some idea (such as #1731) is off topic, simply pointing this out in a criticism completely neutralizes the idea you deem off topic.

If a criticism really is tiny (or ‘weak’), it’s easier to just correct the error it points to than to counter-criticize. (For example, it’s usually quicker to fix a typo than to argue about the merits of pointing out typos.)

This is how Veritula is built. If you have an epistemological disagreement about its functionality or want to continue this broader epistemological discussion, submit an idea or criticism in ‘How Does Veritula Work?’.

Since you asked, I suggest you do both of the following:

1. Submit a criticism of #1731, suggesting that your English is off topic because the carelessness you suggest caused your typos had no effect on your choice of new terminology (‘Statements’ etc).
2. Since you agree that #1738 is not a criticism, revise it to unmark it as a criticism. At the bottom of the revision form, uncheck #1799 to indicate that it does not apply anymore.

Another problem with the term ‘statement’ is that not every statement encodes knowledge. Only some statements do.

For example, trivial or tautological statements aren’t knowledge, neither in the Popperian nor common sense of the word.

You make a good point. Maybe the definition ‘information with causal power’ on its own isn’t very good since virtually any statement can have causal power yet presumably even Deutsch would agree that merely saying ‘hi’ isn’t knowledge even though it can have causal power (eg prompting someone to say ‘hi’ back).

Cool, appreciate it. Since you agree and plan to be more precise, should this really be marked as a criticism?

By the way, you don’t need to put disclaimers like “Addition 01-09-2025”. The versioning system records and displays all that information automatically :)

[J]oy may signal a resolved problem […]

But then the conflict is gone. So I don’t think revision #1741 addresses #1730.

To be clear, when I asked about the conflict behind joy, I meant ongoing conflict.

Your addition seems to agree with my criticism, not address it.

joy may signal a resolved problem

But then the conflict is gone. So I don’t think revision #1741 addresses #1730.

Another problem with the term ‘statement’ is that not every statement encodes knowledge. Only some statements do.

Recall Deutsch’s definitions of knowledge (paraphrasing from memory): information with causal power; information which, once instantiated, causes itself to remain instantiated.

The sentence ‘nice weather we’re having’ is a statement but doesn’t meet those definitions of knowledge.

Or the existing search page could be filtered by discussion. For example, I could link to that page with an additional query param discussion_id=1 or something like that.

Or each discussion could have a search/filter form to filter ideas not just by criticized or not but also content and potentially other attributes.

Feature to collapse all criticized ideas of a discussion? Useful for todo lists.

Feature to collapse all criticized ideas on a page? Useful for todo lists.

Fixed as of 76b7ab4.

Make sure cycling between a leaf revision with children and a leaf revision without children properly toggles the gutter.

Cycling through the revisions of a leaf reveals its gutter, which should be hidden since it’s a leaf.

Sometimes you just want to hide the comments without collapsing the parent idea.

Because that would mean hiding each comment individually if you ever do want to hide all comments of an idea.

Bulk

Because that would mean hiding each comment individually if you ever do want to hide all comments of an idea. And sometimes you just want to hide the comments without collapsing the parent idea.

Having features to both collapse an idea and hide all its comments seems like an opportunity for unification. Why not just go with collapsing and remove the ability to hide all comments?

Done as of fcf578c.

As noted in #1777, fetching the idea actually helps. Well worth the overhead.

This actually helps to prevent rendering links with IDs that don’t point to any existing idea.

Include (preview of) content in idea URLs: '/ideas/123-first-30-or-so-chars-of-idea-here'.