chromoblob

My favorite quote from this article:

> maybe Wikipedia should change its tag-line from “anyone can edit” to “anyone who’s willing to provide citations can edit.”

What... somebody called them "security" systems?..

I mean if it doesn't have bugs. Like if someone uses a calculator, a map, other utilities in order to plan a mass shooting. If bugs may be there, notion of safety is fine.

I wonder how aphantasia and synesthesia are related. Are there many people who have both?

Which point? That there were so many lines of code imagined exactly? It's a continuous scale. 20 lines seems very good, but not exceptional.

Why do you think that organic search is so more corrupted by SEO than ability to pay is relevant, that neutral ranking is noticeably more relevant than ad ranking?

It could work only if advertiser pays per click instead of per show. Is pay-per-click the only option in Google?

There also is clickbait.

> Practically speaking, all software has bugs

This may change in future, e.g. by enough people turning to formal verification.

> any piece of software can if nothing else be used in a chained attack to cause harm

Does it mean that it is unsafe? In that case notion of safety seems to be destroyed.

No, "bad" here is only for consumers, for the business it could be profitable.

It can also be driven by level of my wealth, so a business A might be willing to pay more for an ad for its product than business B despite less assumed relevance, then ranking would not reflect assumed relevance.

Why? Looks pretty imaginable to me.

Cool, but that should be directed to tomjen3.

As for myself, maybe: "that which causes loss or injury to the user when handling of it does not intend this"?

No, only unsafe gratis software would be killed.

Why would you want to see results ranked by advertiser's ability to pay rather than a neutral metric of relevance?

I misread "data roach model" and wondered for a second what "data roaches" are :)

A business can also subsidize adverts for "bad" products by profit from "good" products.

If it pays me, then I believe it's worth recommending :)

Though if you reject this implication, I totally agree.

Innovative.

I like the concept of crossover of fund-raising platform and freelance marketplace. It allows for organization of exchange that is smarter from societal design / functional viewpoint (which is kind of things I like a lot).

I can't give advice about how to get users, but will discuss the concept itself. Remember that you might miss better ideas if you guide your project solely by users' reactions.

Note that if your service doesn't require accountability from creators for spending earned money, it will functionally be simply a Taskrabbit clone with a light decoration of "fundraising causes" added and a focus on local community. This seems relatively hard to justify when there is Taskrabbit already.

I think that most people care little whether someone they hire needs to "pay rent" or anything else, unless the person is significant to them so that they would help them without strict conditions / obligations. So, your idea works in the case of friends or other significant persons to one, without need to make any kind of guarantees about the spending of payments. Allowing only this and limiting causes to "personal", though, would be an unfortunate omission in the design. Consider another way to use your service: creator in their campaign sets promises about spending of payments which legally (or otherwise effectively) bind them, and then unrelated strangers who nevertheless like these promises, find and accept the offer. So your service would have both angles of helping people from local community personally and helping specific projects from anywhere.

Political meaning of this: In essence, the obligations become another half of the goods provided, which may rise the amount of payment. This will result in that offers of products unrelated to each other "purely utilitarianly", will get "married to each other", become interdependent in bundles more fit than independent offers, which is sign of market participants' stronger moral control of society.

My idea of how your service should handle it: a creator creates a set of service offers and a set of causes independently, then links each offer to a subset of causes (in simplest cases, there will be only one cause or all of creator's offers will be linked to all their causes). In each offer, a creator sets one or more default proportions. A buyer either selects a default proportion or sets a custom proportion; it defines which fraction of payment goes to which cause. Every transaction records the proportion, and the obligation-checking mechanism would calculate from all transactions target sums to use in checking. There could be a dummy cause which is checked trivially so that a creator can consume a pre-agreed fraction of payment freely. Example: 70% - Some Noble Cause (creator is accountable for it in a concrete way); 30% - dummy cause (promise is trivially fulfilled, e. g. creator is free to spend this any way). Every element of proportion could have a part fixed by creator and a part variable by buyer, so you could support complex rules for proportions acceptable by creator: for example, 30% on Cause A, 10% minimum on Cause X and on Cause Y, 20% more are distributed between causes X and Y by buyer's choice and remaining 30% are free spending. You can see here how this can become a lifestyle: people would pledge fraction(s) of their earning to charities or generally to causes, they would share their campaign pages... this could become a social media! Consider this. Including the dummy cause, every proportion sums to 100% minus fees for your service. You can also add a kind of payment-doubling mechanism: a buyer allocates X% of payment to a cause, yet Y% is verified spending of, where (Y-X)% automatically comes from somewhere else.

All in all, I think this supplemented variant of the idea is very good and interesting and I want to see it in reality. Thank you for developing this kind of ideas.

Please add tags and categories as well for topic-based discovery.

I improved my definition of feelings so that they can easily be objective.

I define hunger as the ideal signal that corresponds exactly to the extent of starvation. 'Ideal signal' is almost like sensation or feeling, except it may not be always or in full precision accessible by consciousness. It is a physical signal, or a function from the physical state. Extent of starvation seems objective (after fixing its definition), and so hunger seems objective too (correspondence is exact). By this definition, if you are starved, but don't notice a feeling of hunger, it's that, you still are hungry, just don't notice it.

> What I consider hunger someone else can consider the norm or vice versa.

How can that be? Do you mean definition, or something else? What do you consider hunger?

But "semantic interpretation of reality", or meaning, is in the domain of philosophy. In this case, models are used not to just predict independent real events, but to generate opinion on meaning and create a framework on which the whole of understanding will be built and whole of activity will depend. Two models not only don't have similar results, but your model is unusable for me at all. My framework is not an empirical science to which scientific method could apply. This part of philosophy consists of definitions and opinion, what the content of the system of concepts in question should be, backed at most by non-rigorous arguments and considerations. Doesn't look like science for me. Scientificness does not apply to one's philosophical base; even to use logic, you first have to decide to accept it.

> HN is not the right forum for it

why :o HN is literally a website for intellectual curiosities... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Am I right that you want to apply certain apriori ideas, like preference of simpler models, in order to build semantic interpretation of reality? I don't believe that any set of such apriori ideas should be universal for all minds. As for me, I built my framework because I seek to define meaning of activity. This framework is the result of my preconception of meaning together with some other relevant philosophy. I want to tell about it to any people who have same objectives and prelimimaries and anyone else interested and learn criticism.

My model requires immutable identities: without them, there is no temporally consistent individual meaning. As I know that time is always passing, temporal consistency is required. Although my body may disappear without a trace of its contents, my identity is recorded in history/spacetime.

I also know that people can disagree on politics, from which follows that there can be multiple different non-nested identities. If you want, you may still combine conflicting identities into a "conflicting superidentity" to achieve an algebraic style. At the boundary of conflict, though, communication is unlike that inside the volume of agreeing or orthogonal agents. Cooperation is replaced by either trade or fight.

> less likely explanation

It is less likely for you only because you prefer simpler ones. My evaluation of ideas, for example, is not so straightforward.

trilo bitten food

Code containing imperative commands that is directly only linear, and "parallel" only indirectly.

Hunger is pretty objective if your body isn't malfunctioning (and it never is logically, "malfunctioning" body isn't yours). If your body works correctly, you are not free to choose whether to consider yourself hungry, and this is what I understand as objectivity.

If you insist on a definition in terms of physics, there may be a universal standard way of interpolating all distributed ideas of red into a main definition, even if extremely high-tech.

Otherwise, this question comes down to whether the meaning of the term 'red' is generated objectively or subjectively, which is related to philosophy of language and mind. See article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_... .

Well, at least it reduces the problem to the criterium of "health". At least you can individually decide it and use it to accept or reject relativism, treating it as a subjective belief itself :)

Hence, why debate relativism at all?

I as a physical agent may very well be short-lived myself. Identity is simply a preferences code that is implemented by every one of a set of possible physical agents, one of which is my body. An executable identity is maintained as the code of the physical system as long as it can as that. This seems to me only a matter of engineering or biology (based on physics) and the minimal influx of free energy to store the code without errors, as well as resource expenditure for my actions that you need to see if you want to register / keep registering me. (That is, if you disregard the astronomically unlikely quantum events.) The preceding applies to any kind of identity, human or otherwise.

> get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance

That substance, though having a changing state, is governed by immutable (as we notice so far) laws of physics (more directly, emergence of life, evolution, human biology and any natural laws that technology depends on). That's how I feel that this immutability is valid.

If you want, you can regard my identity as a little "physical/natural law" generated around my body. So the law will be there as long as the body works. And, I think, in principle any body housing any identity can be maintained indefinitely given minimal free energy and mass influx (this requires technologies not yet available today) if you again set a target probability of random quantum changes. This applies to "distributed" identities equally.

> the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff

If one depends on arbitrary data from environment and there is not enough experimentation done by either one or the producers of the data, one becomes mutable. Mutate or be mutated.

Feels more like a traditional threading API.

This is what happens when people have too much time for HN. It is a stretch to interpret my reply like that.