= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Epistle to the New York Less Wrongians - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (271)
In that order?
I didn't actually click any buttons, so I'm not sure it matters. If I were to assign a value to this post, it would be along a multi-dimensional access and tilt sideways in a direction that is negative for the purposes of Less Wrong but positive for my personal enjoyment of life. (It's less negative to Less Wrong than it is positive to my person utility, but when multiplied out the negative-value to Less Wrong may produce more overall negative utility).
I think you are taking both the original post and my response more literally and seriously than they were intended. I didn't lie. I joked.
That I replied to a literal aspect does not mean I failed to comprehend the spirit behind the common reddit jest about simultaneous up and down votes - and given the triviality the word lie isn't an accusation to be offended at. Perhaps I could have gone with "Lies! :P" to make the non-serious unmistakable.
Following along within the make believe reality of a jest while the actual topic is in the background is play and "I didn't really so it doesn't matter" is dropping the ball - in the counterfactual jest reality it does matter. It is good form to let others run with what you started and forcing the original frame is what makes things serious.
I find it interesting how many people here (including myself) assumed you literally voted it both up and down. I rather liked the idea myself, since I hadn't even considered that set of actions.
I'm also curious now, whether that action would be functionally different from abstaining. I'd assume it eats one point of your "downvote capacity" and nothing more, but I could see a system where comments get flagged as "controversial" due to lots of votes in both directions (I even recall a "controversial" flag in the code somewhere...)
And for extra irony it is interesting to note that I wasn't one of them and it didn't even occur to me that it would ever be taken literally. I make the same criticism/compliment myself from time to time and don't actually click anything given the technical equivalence. Actually voting up and down is an optional extra for those with a truth fetish.
tests Per another commenter, the second vote seems to supersede the first vote, so they're actually not technically equivalent, interesting :)
That said, I didn't put any great weight in it being literally true, nor am I offended that it was a joke. It's the sort of joke I'd make myself; it just seemed slightly more likely/interesting[*] that it was meant literally :)
Yes, you have to click the second one twice. ;)
Based on the karma for my last comment (-2), I'm hoping someone simply forgot that step :)
I'm not sure what happened to the voting in this thread. I assume someone took offense at the whole conversation. Never mind.
It looks like it just registers the more recent vote, if by "vote up" and "vote down" you mean pressing the buttons labeled as such. Clicking on the same button again retracts the up/down vote.
This is my understanding from fooling around with the vote up / down buttons, there may be hidden behaviors.
This is correct. It is just a three state toggle. Up, null, down.