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 Just a photo
Comment author: Elo 19 October 2017 09:23:55PM 0 points [-]

This looks like leaves. I am not sure what I am missing.

In response to comment by Elo on Just a photo
Comment author: gjm 19 October 2017 09:45:41PM 0 points [-]

When I look at it, the very first thing I see is the sharply-delineated fuzzy region at the left. It looks as if it is something rather than (as it were) mere blurriness in the gaps between other things. There isn't any specific wrong thing my brain wants to think of the image as showing, but when I first looked at it it took something like half a second to figure out what I was looking at.

I'm not sure I'd call it almost like an optical illusion, though.

Comment author: Dagon 19 October 2017 03:11:07PM 0 points [-]

Oh, quite. It's not my preference, but I'm well aware that I'm an outlier on many dimensions and accept that I won't usually have perfect options because of it.

Actually, my preference is "the good old days" when there was both, and the publishers were actively participating in chat. That's probably not available at all.

Comment author: gjm 19 October 2017 03:36:55PM 2 points [-]

I think you may be taking me to have meant "You're a weirdo, because obviously The People Of Less Wrong want something different from what you want", but what I actually meant was "I bet you're not alone, and if I'm right then as more people with preferences like yours join LW2 it will become somewhat more informal and chatty, so rather than just deciding LW2 isn't for you you should use it and try to nudge it in directions that suit your preferences better, and see what happens".

(Overcoming Bias was "publish thoughts, get some comments". So was Less Wrong, to begin with. I think the only reason LW now leans as heavily toward chat as it does is that not much is being written and published here. My guess is that if LW2 succeeds in its goals then it will not be as chatty as present-LW, and that will be a good thing since it will be because there's lots of interesting stuff there that isn't chat.)

Comment author: Dagon 17 October 2017 05:30:36PM *  0 points [-]

Yup, looks that way. LW 2.0 is running, but seems to have gone further toward the "publish thoughts, get some comments" and away from the conversational feel we had here.

So it goes.

Comment author: gjm 19 October 2017 10:52:33AM 0 points [-]

That seems like a thing that depends on how it's used more than how it works. If The People Of Less Wrong want a more conversational feel on LW2 then I expect it will happen.

(Though I think you're right that the LW2 powers-that-be want it somewhat further along the chat-to-publishing axis.)

In response to comment by gjm on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: Jiro 12 October 2017 08:45:16PM *  0 points [-]

Context here suggests that it's something like "the idea that typographical choices for LW2 should match those for the web as a whole"

The idea that the study of typographical choices for the web is a mature science whose (nontrivial) recommendations can all be taken at face value.

In response to comment by Jiro on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: gjm 15 October 2017 02:58:32PM 1 point [-]

So LW2 (as a whole, it seems) is bad and everyone involved should feel bad ... because the people who designed it think that web typography is a mature science whose recommendations can be taken at face value?

Maybe I'm being dim, but that seems really strange to me. It isn't clear to me what even makes you confident that they think that; I'm not sure what it means to say that something is designed around that idea (it can be designed via a process that assumes that idea, I guess, but that really isn't the same); and getting from there to "LW2 is bad and everyone involved should feel bad" seems like an enormous leap.

I wonder whether I'm missing some vital context here.

Comment author: Jiro 11 October 2017 07:35:54PM *  0 points [-]

Looks like LW 2.0 is using a 20px font size, and 25px line height, which is in range of what is recommended.

Is "what was recommended" similar to "mistakes were made"? It blames it on someone else, while leaving the "someone else" unnamed.

Existing recommendations about text size (and particularly, about not fitting too much text on a line) do not consider that Lesswrong has a different usage pattern than most sites. There are references dating back to 1971, but I can't figure out if any scientific studies were actually conducted at the time to determine this, and at any rate, printed text is not the web.

Also, beware of using some recommendation just because it's easy to measure.

This is basically breaking the site in order to fit "recommendations". LW 2.0 is bad, and everyone involved should feel bad. It is fundamentally designed around a bad idea.

In response to comment by Jiro on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: gjm 12 October 2017 04:30:59PM 1 point [-]

It is fundamentally designed around a bad idea.

That seems rather extreme. What specific bad idea do you mean?

(Context here suggests that it's something like "the idea that typographical choices for LW2 should match those for the web as a whole", but even if LW2's design makes that assumption and even if it's a bad assumption it doesn't seem fundamental enough to justify your last paragraph.)

In response to comment by gjm on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: Viliam 08 October 2017 10:09:19PM *  0 points [-]

I don't disagree with weighted votes per se, but saying "6 downvotes" really is misleading, if there were actually less than 6 votes.

I wonder whether it would be helpful to display the karma in analog form, for example as a line, where longer line would mean more total votes (not in linear proportion, but in a way where infinite number of votes asymptotically corresponds to the full width of the used part of page), and the line has a green part and gray part whose length ratio represents the upvotes/downvotes ratio. And of course tooltip for number, but the idea is that people would get the right idea without seeing the numbers.

In response to comment by Viliam on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: gjm 09 October 2017 12:27:34AM 0 points [-]

I agree that it's misleading. One thing that's been mooted -- I don't know whether it's in any way likely to happen, but it seems like it would be an improvement -- is changing from "a level-n user's vote is worth n points" to "a level-n user can vote up to n times on anything". Then if you wanted to use your awesome multi-voting power (1) you'd have to expend at least a little extra effort, (2) you would have the option of giving intermediate numbers of votes, and (3) it would no longer be wrong to say "this got 7 upvotes and 3 downvotes" or whatever.

The analogue-karma-display idea is intriguing. My immediate feeling is that it would be really hard to make this comprehensible, though.

In response to comment by gjm on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: turchin 03 October 2017 08:53:23PM *  0 points [-]

I reregistered as avturchin, because after my password was reseted for turchin, it was not clear what I should do next. However, after I reregistered as avturchin, I was not able to return to my original username, - probably because the LW2 prevent several accounts from one person. I prefer to connect to my original name, but don't know how to do, and don't have much time to search how to do it correctly.

In response to comment by turchin on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: gjm 03 October 2017 10:02:07PM 0 points [-]

I suspect the answer, if you want to do it, is to contact an admin. I think the LW2 admins are generally helpful, and it's much easier for them to change things than it is for the old-LW admins.

In response to comment by gjm on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: Lumifer 03 October 2017 02:57:12PM 0 points [-]

There is this for all posts arranged by day, and there is this for all comments which you can sort by time.

In response to comment by Lumifer on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: gjm 03 October 2017 03:50:11PM 0 points [-]

Oh yes, so there are. The first one is available via the dropdown from "LESSWRONG" at the top left. How does one get to the latter, other than entering the URL by hand?

Comment author: Lumifer 03 October 2017 03:40:22PM 0 points [-]

most folks making claims relating the two can't possibly have the data ... So if folks sound confident, or make strong claims they are either confused or racist or both

There is a big difference between "most folks" and "all folks".

Just because e.g. Twitter is an permanent garbage fire about most complicated topics does not mean that everyone with an opinion about one of these topics is confused (or racist).

Comment author: gjm 03 October 2017 03:45:34PM 0 points [-]

I'm puzzled by this comment. Ilya didn't say anything about "e.g. Twitter" (he did mention the Slate Star Codex comments section, which is a far cry from Twitter), and he didn't say anything about "everyone with an opinion".

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: turchin 01 October 2017 07:35:20PM 3 points [-]

I posted there 3 comments and got 6 downvotes which resulted in extreme negative emotions all the evening that day. While I understand why they were downvoted, my emotional reaction is still a surprise for me.

Because of this, I am not interested to participate in the new site, but I like current LW where downvoting is turned off.

In response to comment by turchin on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: gjm 03 October 2017 02:56:24PM 0 points [-]

It may be worth noting that "6 downvotes" need not mean that 6 people downvoted you. LW2 has "weighted voting" which means that the number of points your upvotes/downvotes change the victim's karma by depends on your own karma level. So maybe you were downvoted twice by weight-3 users, or three times by weight-2 users; in any case, losing 6 points probably corresponds to <6 downvotes.

View more: Next