I don’t think there is anything stopping you from trying to create a test LW2 account to see if you will be locked out
Have you seen the notifications up the top right? Does that do what you want?
How haven’t they caught up to 90s-era newsreaders.
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?
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.
It works now.
It does not seem to be working.
Are there many communities that do that apart from meta-filter?
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.
It’s just an example.
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”
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.
Interesting post, I’ll probably look more into some of these resources at some point. I suppose I’d be curious to know which concepts you really need to read the book for or which ones can be understood more quickly. Because reading through all of these books would be a very big project.
“I’m assuming you mean “new to you” ideas, not actually novel concepts for humanity as a whole. Both are rare, the latter almost vanishingly so. A lot of things we consider “new ideas” for ourselves are actually “new salience of an existing idea” or “change in relative weighting of previous ideas”.”—well that was kind of the point. That if we want to help people coming up with new ideas is somewhat overrated vs. recommending existing resources or adapting existing ideas.
Hopefully the new LW has an option to completely delete a thread.
I can’t see any option to report it :-(
I guess what I was saying that insofar as you require knowledge what you tend to need is usually a recommendation to read an existing resource or an adaption of ideas in an existing resource as opposed to new ideas. The balance of knowledge vs. practise is somewhat outside the scope of this article.
In particular, I wrote: “I’m not saying that this will immediately solve your problem—you will still need to put in the hard yards of experiment and practise—just that lack of knowledge will no longer be the limiting factor.”
I wrote a post on a similar idea recently—self-conscious ideologies (http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/p6s/selfconscious_ideology/) - but I think you did a much better job of explaining the concept. I’m really glad that you did this because I consider it to be very important!
Link doesn’t seem to be working: http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/06/red-teaming-climate-chang1
What did you do re: Captain Awkward advice?