There are a few things that sound similar to what you're talking about. The first is the process of writing an RFC: https://github.com/inasafe/inasafe/wiki/How-to-write-an-RFC. Also wikipedia must need to do many of the things you describe, so looking into how they reach consensus may be interesting for you. Also, there are attempts to have more of a direct democracy style governance in the US, and they have certain procedures that you may want to look into: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-future-of-democracy/politics-without-politicians
I do like ... (read more)
I'm still not clear on what exactly you're wanting to do with Github.
What do you mean by "reach out to people"? Usually that just means contact them. But here you seem to mean something different.
Thanks. The "drawing what you see" vs "drawing what you think" distinction combined with the images helped me understand the idea better.This seems somewhat related to what Scott Alexander called "concept shaped holes." So you're saying that some people have a "concept of how to draw what you see" shaped hole, and that Edwards has some techniques of helping you fill that gap.Are you specifically looking for conceptual shifts that would allow you to do something better? Or is just being able to understand something you previously didn't understand enough? L... (read more)
Thanks for writing up your thoughts here. I hope you wont mind a little push-back.There's a premise underlying much of your thought that I don't think is true.
But as the world of Social Studies consists of the interactions of persons, places, and things, they are subject to the Laws of Physics, and so the tenants of Physics must apply.
I don't really see how the laws of physics apply to social interactions. To me it sounds like you're mixing up different levels of description without any reason.Yes, at bottom we're all made up of physical stuff that physics... (read more)
I think some question in this area would work well for this collaboration I'm proposing: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oqSMn6WEXPdDEvyyt/what-question-would-you-like-to-collaborate-onIf you add a question there and it gets picked I'd be happy to work on this with you.
Ya I thought it was worth a try. Looks like exactly one person is putting forward a question so far. Do you have any questions you'd be interested in working on?
Thanks for being the first person to submit a question!
It turns people who have "no drawing talent" into people who can easily draw anything they see, not by strenuous exercise, but by a conceptual shift that can be achieved in a few hours.
Did that work for you, or do you know of any evidence that that's the case? I'm skeptical that a few hours can allow anyone to "draw anything they see" but would be happy to change my mind on that. I guess you didn't say how well they'd be able to draw after just a few hours of "conceptual shift." But I read you as... (read more)
I'm a bit worried that my question will be picked and then I'll be the only one working on it. So to give this thing a better chance of at least two people collaborating, I'm not submitting a question.
Thanks. I'd heard of wikispore, but not wikifunctions. That looks cool.
"I wrote first wrote"Thanks for the post!
A really easy way to set up your own wiki is to use a github repo. You can make it private if you don't want people to see it. If you use markdown and use the .md file extension, github will show the pages nicely and will even make links to other pages work.
do you ever go back to old free form notes and find yourself unable to reconstruct what you originally meant?
I don't think I've ever had that problem.
Or find the task of wading through your old free form notes unpleasant, since they're not polished?
I think it's fun. I've never found it unpleasant. And i... (read more)
Also make sure to check out the other posts with the note taking tag if you haven't seen them already: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/note-taking
I like using a wiki for notes. Something like this: http://evergreennotes.com/. There are a lot of ways to set up a wiki.
1) How consistently do you take notes when you're reading up on a new skill or subject?
I take notes for things that I want to eventually write something about, so for most things I don't end up taking notes.
2) Do you regularly refer back to old notes?
Sure. Especially keeping track of relevant sources is super useful for future me.
3) Do you approach note-taking differently for different subjects or purposes?
For notes tha... (read more)
If you're just looking for the arguments. This are what you're looking for:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism
How do you know that disinterested (not game-theoretic or instrumental) altruism is irrational / doesn't make any sense?
What is "disinterested altruism"? And why do you think it's connected to moral anti-realism?
Thx. I'll check it out.
I agree. My two questions with regards to that are:
StackExchange only flags duplicates, that's true, but the reason is so that search is more efficient, not less. The duplicate serves as a signpost pointing to the canonical question.
Ya I get that. But why keep all the answers and stuff from the duplicates? My idea with the question wiki was to keep the duplicate question page (because maybe it's worded a bit differently and would show up differently in searches), have a pointer to the canonical question, and remove the rest of the content on that page, combining it with the canonical question page.
Ya I think you're basically right here. Which is why I'm not really hoping to "grow large enough to be comparable to Stack Exchange and still remain good." In fact even growing large enough and being sucky seems very hard.My goal is just to make something that's useful to individuals. I figure if I get use out of the thing when working alone, maybe other people would too.
I'm not sure I'm getting your question.I think mediawiki (the software that runs both wikipedia and this question wiki) only allows text by default. But there's no reason why the pages can't just link to relevant sources. And in fact probably some questions should be answered with just one link to the relevant wikipedia page. Ideally pages should synthesize relevant sources but I think just listing sources is better than nothing.
Sure. But the question is can you know everything it knows and not be as good as it? That is, does understanding the go bot in your sense imply that you could play an even game against it?
Ah ya I see what you're saying. Ya that's definitely right. Certainly the most common kind of question asker online just wants to ask the highest number of the most qualified people their question and that's it. Unless/until the site has a large user base that won't really be possible on the wiki.Still, I think as long as the thing is useful to some people it may be able to grow. But it may be useful to organize my thoughts better on exactly what the value is for single users.One example that comes to mind is the polymath project. They found it useful to start a wiki to organize their projects. If anyone else wants to come along and do a similar thing, they can just use this wiki instead of making their own.
By "network effect" do you mean this? I take the network effect to be a problem here only if the wiki requires a large amount of people to be useful. My hope is that the wiki should be useful even for a very small number of people. For example, I get use out of it myself just as a place to put some notes that I want to show to people and as a way of organizing my own questions.
I'm a bit confused. What's the difference between "knowing everything that the best go bot knows" and "being able to play an even game against a go bot."? I think they're basically the same. It seems to me that you can't know everything the go bot knows without being able to beat any professional go player.Or am I missing something?
Hi y'all.Recently I've become very interested in open research. A friend of mine gave me the tip to check out lesswrong. I found that lesswrong has been interested in trying to support collaborative open research (one, two, three) for a few years at least. That was the original idea behind lesswrong.com/questions. Recently Ruby explained some of their problems getting this sort of thing going with the previous approach and sketched a feature he's calling "Research Agendas." I think something like his Research Agendas seems quite useful. So that's... (read more)
I added in a few more of the questions from the template that seem relevant. Including the one about possible difficulties. I think what's there cover's your trade-off.
I was thinking that the template would be something where you could just keep the sections that seem relevant and delete the rest. But I guess even that would start to get annoying if the thing was super long. That's a good consideration to keep in mind.
What factors do you expect have the highest likelihood of severely compromising your own quality and/or duration of life, within the next 1, 5, or 10 years?
A family member dying.
Contracting a serious disease, or becoming severely injured from an accident.
Some incident (medical or otherwise) will use the rest of my savings and put me in financial instability.
How do these risks change your behavior compared to how you expect you'd act if they were less relevant to you?
I basically never think about these risks. I guess the money one I do a bit. I use fa... (read more)
I added "Given these problems, why are people still tolerating the status quo (if they are)?" to the template. Does that capture your idea well enough?
You have spelled "stakeholders" as "steak-holders", which is charming but may reduce credibility in some circumstances.
Heh. Funny mistake. Thanks.
A suggested improvement to the template: When examining the status quo, also ask "for what related problems does the status quo have a built-in solution?".
I want to make sure I understand your point here. Is the idea that sometimes we see that a system isn't solving some problem well enough, and so try to fix it. But we don't take into account the fact that the system isn't just trying to solve that problem, but ... (read more)
Maybe it would help if you shared what you've been able to find out so far?
[This is what I've found so far:]
It seems to be some sort of continuous glucose monitor
[todo: summarize findings, find more discussion]