The output is in SVG format, but the cool thing about SVGs is that they (a) can have hyperlinks in them, and (b) can be displayed in the browser. So the generated SVG is displayed in your browser, and each of the nodes are links to the wikipage the node represents, so you can indeed use it to navigate the wiki.

I think the most prominent functionality is the mind-mapping. Wikis, AFAICT, don’t have that.

Oh, but they do.

I don’t know of any simple self-hosted local wiki software off the top of my head though.

PmWiki can do this, though whether it’s ‘simple’ is a matter of perspective. (It’s certainly easy to use.)

My reaction would be that a vaccine should be made for profit; if there are people who can’t afford it there should be a charity to buy the vaccine for them.

Pay careful attention to this formulation. Note the phrase:

there should be

What does that mean, precisely?

When we speak of whether a vaccine should be made for profit or not, we are, implicitly, speaking from the perspective of decision-makers who are in a position to decide whether a vaccine will be made on a for-profit or a non-profit basis. This may be some level of government (which may choose to contract to get a vaccine made, then distribute it to members of the public—or, may elect not to do so, and leave the matter to the vaccine manufacturers to decide), or it may be a corporation (which may manufacture the vaccine and then choose to make it available for free, instead of selling it).

Now, from the standpoint of those decision-makers, what does it mean to say that the vaccine should be for-profit but that “there should be” a charity to buy the vaccine for those who need it? It could only mean one of two things:

1. We—i.e., by construction, that decision-making organization—having chosen to sell the vaccine for a profit, will now also spin off a charity whose purpose will be to make the vaccine available on a non-profit basis.

2. We will sell the vaccine at a profit. Perhaps someone else will found a charity which will purchase our vaccine and make it available on a non-profit basis. Or, perhaps not. Either way, we will merely sell it and make a profit.

And note that option #1 is no different from “make the vaccine on a non-profit basis” in the first place, whereas option #2 is simply a shrug—a refusal to accept any responsibility for the problem of people who can’t afford the vaccine.

Either way, you have not answered leggi’s question/challenge, but evaded it.

Well, for one thing, the problem of “code delivered from a site you would normally trust but that is now malicious” is the same as the problem of “being mistaken about what sites to trust (and so accidentally trusting a site that was malicious all along)”.

As I understand your question, and as I understand the web and its technologies, the problem basically is that “if you run code (JavaScript) in your browser—code that is provided by arbitrary people on the internet—this is fundamentally a vulnerability”. And that’s true. There’s no solution to that basic fact other than “don’t run JavaScript”.

The matter really depends on how much you trust your browser vendor (Google, Apple, or Mozilla) to secure the browser against exploits that could harm/steal/pwn your computer or your data. If you trust them to a reasonable degree, then precautions short of “disable JavaScript entirely” suffice. If you really don’t trust them very much at all, then disable JavaScript (and possibly take even stricter measures to limit your exposure, such as running your browser in a VM, or some such thing; Richard Stallman’s browse-by-email workflow would be an extreme example of this).

… then your answer is wrong. So… what gives?

Re: #1:

Have you read the papers I linked (or the more directly relevant papers cited by those)? What do you think about Aumann’s commentary on this question, for instance?

Thanks to gwern for the mention of GW/RTS!

In the interests of giving equal screen time to the (friendly!) ‘competition’, here’s yet another viewer site for Less Wrong—one which takes an even more low-key and minimalist approach:

https://lw2.issarice.com/

Unless I am misunderstanding, wouldn’t orthonormal say that “switching frames” is actually a thing not to do (and that it’s something post-rationalists do, which is in conflict with rationalist approaches)?