I do see the “show parent” icon, now that you have pointed it out, and I have viewed a short-form post with missing comments, expanded the comments, then explicitly gone back and looked for the comments I knew were missing. I would say that it is extremely subtle. I couldn’t find it, even when I was looking for it, until I knew exactly which comment to look for it on.
I think (absent a more-code solution) a reasonable thing would be to replace the tiny subtle icon with text like “(… parent comment omitted, click to show …)” (presumably on a line by itself above the current top line.)
Right now I claim there is really no indication that a comment is missing unless the reader is extremely familiar with the interface, and even then it’s tiny and would be easy to miss even if you knew where to look.
I agree that it only makes toy demos, but it definitely goes beyond WIMP. It’s a simulation of the sort of interface one might expect in a future where every surface is a screen—it’s a janky, extremely-low-fidelity simulation, which holds together barely well enough to serve the purpose, but it does serve, and it’s an interesting way to try out this interaction style.
A surprisingly large part of Dynamic Land is actually (in some sense) self-hosting. There is a small core/kernel that is extrinsic, including e.g. the parser for the language. But a lot of low-level functionality is indeed implemented inside the interpreter (as I recall, they use a sort of pseudo-Lua, crossed with Smalltalk-like agent stuff—my vague recollection is that there’s something like a Lua interpreter with a custom preprocessor underlying it.)
I think displaying this in a non-misleading fashion would be pretty easy—just display the divs for any intermediate elided comments, but with no content in them. Then the nesting will be visible. You could display their content as ‘...’ or ‘show comment’ or whatever if you wanted, but I think the minimal solution without that would totally solve the problem where I claim the current display is super misleading about the context of comments.
(The most severe example of the thing I’m pointing to would be something like:
> A: I hate puppies, kick them all!
> B: You are a terrible person!
> C: I agree completely.
being rendered as:
> A: I hate puppies, kick them all!
> C: I agree completely.
with no direct indication that anything is missing. The example that prompted me to complain was not at this level of severity but the out-of-context reply was jarring and confusing.)
Facebook does not in any way have the specific problem I’m pointing to here, which is that the nesting structure of the comments is misrepresented. Facebook never elides a comment while showing a direct child of that comment. Of course, facebook only supports a single level of comment nesting, so it does sometimes elide a comment while showing a same-level reply. But I think that does not appear misleading, both because (1) fb users are thus accustomed to a reply-looking comment NOT being a reply to the thing it’s displayed under, and (2) the ‘show more’ link is DIRECTLY in the place where the eye goes searching for the missing comment, not in some unrelated location down below.
(EDIT: Another thing I realized while composing my other comment: If you use the ‘reply’ button on facebook, and you’re replying to a reply to a comment, so that you generate a same-level reply, it will be prefixed with the name of the person you’re replying to. So at worst I will see a comment starting with “B: (reply to b)” nested under a comment by person A, which is another cue that the intermediate comment has been hidden.)
I have been! I thought it was an interesting experiment, and I really hope they have another community day so I can visit again. I think there’s probably a lot to learn from it, and I think there are things that you can only learn effectively by trying out weird experiments in real life to see “how this feels”. But I don’t really expect anything to directly come of it—the project is pretty janky, and while it’s a fantastic platform for tiny cute demos, I don’t think any concrete part of it (other than the general sense of “this is an inspiration to try to go recreate this neat type of interaction in a more robust way”) is really useful.
Bug report copied from a FB comment I made:
I was browsing shortform and noticed that a comment was elided (presumably for low score) in a way that made its children appear to be children of its parents. This is really super duper misleading. LW should find some way to indicate that this is not the case, other than the existence of a tiny “show more comments” link that isn’t necessarily even very nearby.
[I have no reason to believe that this was specifically a shortform thing—I assume it will do this elsewhere too. This is just where I discovered it.]
I like your definition of the mission—I haven’t heard it described in that way / that degree of detail before, and I tend to agree with it. I’m not sure how universally agreed it is, but I would certainly advocate for your vision of it.
My experience with physical therapists has been that they are good at finding soft tissue (muscle, tendon, ligament) issues; and they generally provide exercises for you to do at home which are supposed to help your specific issues. (They do not expect you to pay close attention to your movement at all times; normal people can’t do that and they’re at least that realistic.) I suppose they might ask you to do something like it for a short time to help with diagnosis, but not as a form of long-term treatment. (Although as another caveat, if there’s a specific thing you are doing that they think is causing major problems, they may suggest you stop doing it. For example, I significantly changed my sleeping position to fix some back problems I was having.)
Payment-wise, I believe you may be able to get this covered by insurance if you get a referral to a PT through your primary care physician. And notably, in the state of California I believe a PT can’t legally see you without such a referral anyway, from my own research when I was going to see one.
Your physician may want to test you for other things that might cause your issues, if they can think of any common ones, e.g. vitamin deficiencies. They may want you to get a general-purpose blood test for Basic Deficiencies in Important Stuff, just to check. Your insurance ought to cover all of this, subject to any copays/deductibles etc., which I understand could still be expensive depending on your insurance.
I like the word ‘synergy’ for this, because people literally use it as a generic example of a meaningless business word, but—when not being abused—it actually has a very precise meaning. (Value created by combination; the part of the whole which exceeds the sum of the parts. You could almost translate it as “binding energy.” Or perhaps by analogy “binding value.”)
I didn’t really fully grasp the importance of the concept until I was spending some time thinking about the question: Why merge or spin off companies? Doesn’t a free-market merger or spinoff transaction result in trading a business for an amount of cash worth the same amount as the business? Synergy (or, I suppose, anti-synergy, though I’ve never heard the word used) -- binding energy, positive or negative—is the answer.
I am extremely interested in this area and would love to work with other interested individuals in this area, or be directed to any relevant resources.
(Bret Victor and Alan Kay are both, as far as I know, responsible in part for this project, which I’ve visited and seems pretty interesting: https://dynamicland.org/ . I am not really object-level convinced that what they are currently building is a fruitful direction, but it’s at least quite cool, and it’s the right kind of new direction/idea.)
I am curious about the reasoning behind “giving unsolicited monetary gifts to friends or acquaintances (people known to you personally, not via mass media) who seem like they’re basically benevolent and competent, have high marginal value for money, and aren’t asking for any.” This doesn’t seem like a very EA recommendation—anybody I know personally is almost certainly among the richest individuals in the world, and even if they have the highest marginal value for money of anybody I know, it’s probably still quite low relative to e.g. recipients of GiveDirectly grants. Right?
(I’m asking more to understand the reasoning behind the suggestion, and whether Ben feels this is indeed an “EA” recommendation—not to challenge that this may well be a great thing to do, either way.)
Test comment. Please don’t upvote etc. etc.
(Sorry moderators, I assume you deleted my other ones, but I can’t really try to debug notification breakage without creating more.)
I made a proposal for a moderator tool that seems like it might have been helpful to this thread, partly in response to your bracketed text, and I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. https://github.com/LessWrong2/Lesswrong2/issues/610
The winter solstice last year used the same venue it had used the previous year, but the venue imposed a new, lower restriction on the maximum number of attendees, due to some new interpretation of the fire code or something. As a result, tickets did sell out. (I wasn’t close enough to organization last year to know how last-minute the change was, but my impression was that there was some scrambling in response.)
This year a new venue is being sought that can better accommodate the number of people who want to attend.
Yikes, ok. “Party-hopping” makes it sound like they didn’t actually buy tickets or know what the event was, but just came in off the street. Perhaps this is a case for ticket enforcement / bouncers? I’m reluctant to suggest a remedy based on a single example, since it sounds like the people you’re talking about arrived together, and so arguably constitute a single datapoint among them. But having someone designated to deal with “problem people” is arguably a good idea even from zero datapoints—usually this is the sort of thing a code of conduct might spell out, but I think the most basic step is having a person with extra cycles who knows it’s their responsibility to deal with this kind of thing (and who knows they have the full authority to eject people, with right of appeal if the organizers want to take those, but without having to involve a committee.)
I kind of wish it were simple to just go “hm, can you identify these people to me so that I can make my own judgement?” But there are probably several reasons that’s impractical including (I expect) that you don’t know them by name.
It seems surprising to me that, in such a large crowd, there could be multiple people managing to make you uncomfortable (as opposed to, by contrast, managing to make someone somewhere uncomfortable, but not all the same someone, if that makes sense.) I am definitely wondering whether I didn’t encounter them, or encountered them and they didn’t have the same impact on me. I’m curious if you are able to describe the behaviors you saw, and also if you have a sense of broader context of like, do you think they were having this effect on lots of people? Do you feel like other rationalist events have similar issues or is this something unique to this one (maybe because it’s advertised more widely? Did you have a sense of where they came from?)
(A possible downside I see is that it might somehow do the opposite—that voting will feel like something that is reinforced in a conditioning sense, so that users with more voting power will get more reinforcers since they do click->reward more times, and that this will actually give them a habit of wanting to apply the maximum vote more than they otherwise would because it feels satisfying to vote repeatedly. This isn’t clearly a lot worse than the situation we have now, where you always vote maximum with no option.)
I liked the idea I think you mentioned in an earlier thread about this, where each click increases vote weight by one. It’s conceptually very simple, which I think is a good property for a UI. It does involve more clicks to apply more voting power, but that doesn’t seem bad to me. How often does one need to give something the maximum amount of votes, such that extra clicks are a problem? It seems to me this would tend to default to giving everyone the same voting power, but allow users with more karma to summon more voting power with very slightly more effort if they think it’s warranted. That feels right to me.
Posting because my ego feels compelled to see how big my text is.