Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: casebash 02 October 2017 11:08:10AM 1 point [-]

What are the plans for the Wiki? If the plan is to keep it the same, why doesn't Lesser Wrong have a link to it yet?

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 01 October 2017 05:17:11PM *  14 points [-]

First, I appreciate the work people have done to make LW 2 happen. Here are my notes:

  1. Strong feeling - the links and descriptions of the Sequences, the Codex, and HPMOR (while good) should not be at the top of the page. The top should be the newest material.
  2. Please please please include a "hide subthread" option to collapse a comment and all its responses. That is a dealbreaker for me, if a site doesn't have that feature, I won't read the comments.
  3. Current LW has a really nice alternating color scheme for comment/reply. One comment will have a grey background, the comment below it will have a beige background. That is a key feature for visually parsing a comment thread.
  4. I liked the concept of having a main section and a discussion section, where the bar for posting in the latter is lower. For whatever reason, people seem to get angry if you post something that they feel is low quality or not relevant.
  5. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but somehow I don't quite like the default font. It may be that I like a different font for reading on dead tree paper vs on a computer screen?
  6. It may be slightly evil, but the karma display on the right side of the screen makes the site more addictive, because people love to see if they get upvotes or comment replies.
  7. It seems weird to allow people to upvote/downvote an article right from the home page, do you really want people to vote for an article without reading it?
Comment author: casebash 02 October 2017 10:41:53AM 3 points [-]

I agree that people should not be able to upvote or downvote an article without having clicked through to it.

I also find the comments hard to parse because the separation is less explicit than on either Reddit or here.

Comment author: Habryka 21 September 2017 02:19:11AM 0 points [-]

Hmm, is there anything in particular that is not working? We fixed a few bugs over the last few hours, but the page should have been functional since 4PM.

Comment author: casebash 21 September 2017 01:29:58PM 0 points [-]

It works now.

Comment author: Habryka 20 September 2017 06:51:02PM *  2 points [-]

Update: Open beta will happen today by 4pm Pacific time. At this point you will be able to sign up / login with your LW 1.0 accounts (if the latter, you should request a password-rest email, as we did not copy over your passwords).

Comment author: casebash 20 September 2017 11:18:22PM 0 points [-]

It does not seem to be working.

Comment author: moridinamael 15 September 2017 09:48:48PM 12 points [-]

I've heard that in some cases, humans regard money to be an incentive.

Integrating Patreon, Paypal or some existing micropayments system could allow users to not only upvote but financially reward high-value community members.

If Less Wrong had a little "support this user on Patreon" icon next to every poster's username, I would certainly have thrown some dollars at more than a handful of Less Wrong posters. Put more explicitly - maybe Yvain and Eliezer would be encouraged to post certain content on LW2.0 rather than SSC/Facebook if they reliably got a little cash from the community at large every time they did it.

Speaking of the uses of money, I'm fond of communities that are free to read but require a small registration fee in order to post. Such fees are a practically insurmountable barrier to trolls. Eugine Nier could not have done what he did if registering an account cost $10, or even $1.

Comment author: casebash 15 September 2017 10:40:52PM 0 points [-]

Are there many communities that do that apart from meta-filter?

Comment author: casebash 15 September 2017 09:54:04AM *  7 points [-]

Firstly, well done on all your hard work! I'm very excited to see how this will work out.

Secondly, I know that this might be best after the vote, but don't forget to take advantage of community support.

I'm sure that if you set up a Kickstarter or similar, that people would donate to it, now that you've proven your ability to deliver.

I also believe that, given how many programmers we have here, many people will want to make contributions to the codebase. My understanding was that this wasn't really happening before: a) Because the old code base was extremely difficult to get up and running/messy b) Because it wasn't clear who to talk to if you wanted to know if your changes were likely to be approved if you made them.

It looks like a) has been solved, if you also improve b), then I expect a bunch of people will want to contribute.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 August 2017 01:30:15PM 1 point [-]

Your concept of a table is not the one that's used by most people. Most people don't have a problem imagining a 5-legged table and call an item like http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/10135659/ a stool instead of a table.

Comment author: casebash 03 August 2017 02:00:52PM 0 points [-]

It's just an example.

Comment author: ChristianKl 03 August 2017 01:27:28PM 0 points [-]

Things in the territory don't appear in the map. They have a representation in the map.

Comment author: casebash 03 August 2017 02:00:21PM 2 points [-]

Yes, they don't appear in the map, but when you see a mountain you think, "Hmm... this really needs to go in the map"

Map and territory: Natural structures

1 casebash 01 August 2017 01:53PM

This will be a very short post which simply defines one term which I find useful when discussing the map and the territory.

I find it very useful to have a term that helps clarify that the map is not completely arbitrary and that there are things in the territory that are natural candidates for appearing in the map. For example, for the Ship of Thesus, one natural candidate is the pure, original, unmodified ship; another are the fixed percentages (ie. 50% original); another would be a continuity based measure. If you are asked to create a definition of what counts as the Ship of Thesus, these are some of the first ideas that you would come up with, although you would of course need to define it in much, much more detail to get all the way down to the level of the territory.

Or suppose you are trying to define what is meant by table. Again, the definition is purely arbitrary and whatever you choose, but there are certain natural structures in reality that pop out at you. One might be all four-legged, non-living objects with a flat top, another might relax the four-legged requirement so that it only required four legs at one particular time, ect.

When I'm explaining that a particular concept has been reified, it greatly clarifies my position to explain that I don't believe that the concept is empty, but there is *something* behind it that leads us to want that word. That something is really not a single thing (or else it would be real, not reified), but a collection of closely related 'natural structures'. Each of the definitions provided for the Ship of Thesus or a table corresponds to a different natural structure, while the term itself appears in the map. I hope you find this word useful too, but if you have any suggestions for a better term, please mention it in the comments.

Comment author: casebash 30 July 2017 02:26:18PM 0 points [-]

I think it is important to note that there are probably some ways in which this is adaptive. Us nerds probably spend far too much time thinking and trying to be consistent when it offers us very little benefit. It's also better socially in order to be more flexible - people don't like people who follow the rules too strictly as they are more likely to dob them in. It also much it much easier to appear sincere, but also come up with an excuse for avoiding your prior commitments.

View more: Next