IssueRaiser

> Everything, including your example.

> Everything, including your example. The entire point is to discourage people from making claims. Then you wouldn't have discussion, at least not of this type. It would resemble more a slightly faster version of academic papers as everybody has to read everything and becomes more invested in preventing themselves from being blasted for making an unsupported claim on accident than in contributing. > This is a good critique, but if one were actually implementing this, you'd also need to implement some way to verify that people are actually reading the sources (which in itself is already a big annoying problem). Right, but when you say 'we should do thing X' and when somebody says 'we can't do thing X without solving Y' you can't just reply with 'also solve thing Y'. For example, we should go to Alpha Centauri, but I think figuring out FTL travel is sort of necessary first. > Your other points are also good, but ultimately this thing I'm claiming would be niche due to the friction involved. If it were to not be niche you'd want to put in effort to "validate", or in other words have "trusted" (another problem) members randomly select controversial claims and verify them manually. I don't believe a fully algorithmic approach, even with "the crowd" can work. Yeah, it might work in that particular usecase. Perhaps as an adjunct to academic listservs.

Posted by Mezzie on Dec 17, 2021, 6:53 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.3,000 issues0 comments

hackernews (Other)

> Everything, including your example.

MezzieDec 17, 2021, 6:53 PM

> Everything, including your example. The entire point is to discourage people from making claims. Then you wouldn't have discussion, at least not of this type. It would resemble more a slightly faster version of academic papers as everybody has to read everything and becomes more invested in preventing themselves from being blasted for making an unsupported claim on accident than in contributing. > This is a good critique, but if one were actually implementing this, you'd also need to implement some way to verify that people are actually reading the sources (which in itself is already a big annoying problem). Right, but when you say 'we should do thing X' and when somebody says 'we can't do thing X without solving Y' you can't just reply with 'also solve thing Y'. For example, we should go to Alpha Centauri, but I think figuring out FTL travel is sort of necessary first. > Your other points are also good, but ultimately this thing I'm claiming would be niche due to the friction involved. If it were to not be niche you'd want to put in effort to "validate", or in other words have "trusted" (another problem) members randomly select controversial claims and verify them manually. I don't believe a fully algorithmic approach, even with "the crowd" can work. Yeah, it might work in that particular usecase. Perhaps as an adjunct to academic listservs.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue