lol I can like my own comments. Dunno if that should be fixed or not. A user liking their own comment.. it is is information, which might mean something, though one gets the sense that it's usually going to be dishonest information, that doesn't mean what it appears to mean, which probably makes it an anti-pattern

Tree-Structured Comment Sections

Currently the comment system seems to be limited to one level of indentation. Although one level of indentation is very good, full nesting would be better. I guess it might be argued that full nesting wont be needed here, but I wouldn't bet on that. Full threading has its own implementation challenges though. Eventually comments will hit the right side of the page and become unreasonably compressed. I can think of two solutions:

• The more straightforward solution: render comments at the deepest displayable depth with their subthreads hidden, then serve comment permalinks as separate pages, where the subject comment is rendered as a root thread. To read replies to comments at the depth limit, the user goes to their parent's page.

• Something I havn't seen done: Comments just keep going right, but they don't compress. Comment views will have to be horizontally scrollable.

If you were going to increase the depth limit, you'd probably want to rethink the gratuitous consumption of whitespace that's going on in the current style. I'm more partial to the way reddit's material design themes tend to do things https://i.imgur.com/6dHto8n.png . Root threads may be in separate cards, but nested comments are rendered as parts of the whole with implied boundaries.

This looks like a virtuous project. What would someone need to know if they wanted to contribute to its development? Developing the technology, I mean, of course anyone can contribute to the developing the corpus.

Do we have(or need) any empirical evidence that algorithmic simplicity (space) is the ideal and ultimate absolute prior? If I reread the article carefully I see it doesn't quite seem to advocate this, but I think it's very easy for a learner to pick up that misconception from the way AIXI is generally discussed, the assumption that we somehow know that space complexity is the final answer, and I wonder if it should be ruled out or qualified here.

(I believe it's easy to pick up that misconception because it happened to me. I later came to realize I probably wouldn't bet at good odds that Space AIXI wont ever be dominated by a variant AIXI made with some other razor, the speed of generating environment turing machines, for instance, instead of space. Or how about inverse cyclomatic complexity or some more general measure of algorithm quality that humans thus far have lacked the breadth of mind to find, test or work with mathematically? Or maybe even just some other space complexity of some other machine model? Space complexity of TMs seems like extremely low-hanging fruit.)

I'm hoping to hear someone's done the work of compiling some ridiculously extensive dataset of algorithms and their competitors and demonstrating that space complexity seemed more predictive of domination than any of the other general metrics we could think of. If this result had been found, nobody ever seems to cite it. Though I suppose we might not hear about it when so many people find it completely intuitive.