Even that is putting it a bit too lightly.
i.e. Is there even a single, bonafide, novel proof at all?
Proven mathematically, or otherwise demonstrated with 100% certainty, across the last 10+ years.
Or is it all just 'lenses', subjective views, probabilistic analysis, etc...?
It's a bit ironic that the app idea doesn't work in practice for the same reasons that communism doesn't work in practice.
Why do you care so much about being first out the door, so much so that your willing to look like a clown/crackpot along the way?
The existing writings, from what I can see, don't exactly portray the writer as a bonafide genius, so at best folks will perceive you as a moderately above average person with some odd tendencies/preferences, who got unusually lucky.
And then promptly forget about it when the genuine geniuses publish their highly credible results.
And that's assuming it is even solvable, which seems to be increasingly not the case.
Likely the provider of e-signatures would have to assume some sort of legal liability, hence costs scaling. Maybe even exponentially as they become a bigger and bigger target. But the intelligence and foresight of even the best legal team in the world plateaus.
The shy folks can hide behind pseudonyms.
For the shy folks that for whatever reason must use their real name, well there are costs and benefits to using real name identifiers.
And in any case almost none of them will ever be so important, or attain a position of such significance, that whether they disengage or engage will move the needle, frankly.
Maybe if hundreds of such folks simultaneously did so en masse, but anything below that will see replacement.
Whether via themselves creating a pseudonym identity after being embarrassed too many times, new folks joining the online commentating sphere, etc.
And for the small fraction that refuse to do that and quit forever, who will not accept a pseudonym, well there simply isn't a need for that many conversational foils, devils-advocates, agitators, mouth-pieces, prima-donnas, etc...
Even for a LW sized community, a few dozen is probably sufficient to satisfy all relevant interest groups.
So I'm not convinced it's a big enough problem to be worth changing any paradigms. This applies to all online communities, not just LW, a half-heartedly supported and enforced rule change is usually worse then no change at all.
I'd love it if tapping out as a safe, no-shame-attached way of leaving a discussion became normal outside of rationalist circles.
It's still unclear why exactly this is a superior paradigm.
Can you list out the upsides and downsides so that passing readers can have a more complete picture?
Dagon makes a good point about discovering external truths. Which is not valued in martial arts, but highly highly valued elsewhere.
Even one novel discovery on par with gravitation or the Hubble constant or similar would be more than worth embarrassing millions upon millions of online commentators in my view.
Can you link to a source for a definition of 'enactive'?
By this token, everyone is neutral, no one is friendly, unless I am literally their top priority in the whole world, and they mine (that doesn't sound like simple "friendship"... more like some kind of eternal fated bond between soulmates).
Can you explain your reasoning here? How does a bias towards or against imply a 'top priority'?
Yes, it's possible to strike deals, but that doesn't mean they will actually be 'friendly', at most 'neutral'. They may superficially give off the appearance of being 'friendly' but then again humans do that too all the time.