Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Activity for Julius H.
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #290888 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #287896 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290941 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290941 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Discourse software as helpful example I just felt like saying that the Discourse forum software is quite good quality, and it also has some interesting examples of new forum features not commonly seen elsewhere. For example, on the OpenAI users forum, built on Discourse, there is a feature where as you scroll downwards, an animated displ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290938 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Adopt a notifications model supporting toggleable previews One way I think Codidact could have a big leg up on Stack Exchange would be a more robust notifications system, borrowing from the pre-established template of some other software. For example, on iOS, there are a few minimal yet beneficial ways to customize how you receive notifications, from all ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290936 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290936 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290936 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Categorical or criterion-based voting I am starting to strongly lean towards that votes should pretty much always come with explanations. I wonder if it is not such a radical change in system design to replace the universal or generic upvote/downvote with a category-based reaction system. In its simplest iteration, it could focus on a sm... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290935 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Roadmap or checklist for successfully launching new site? I’m motivated to see a Philosophy site go live. Here is a post detailing how sites are actually established, from three years ago. I’m wondering if that answer can be updated to be more actionable, clear-cut, criteria-oriented, even quantifiable. For example, “if a site has X questions with an ave... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290932 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Some polemics regarding genAIcontent I wish to open a theoretical conversation on some aspects of the site policies regarding AI. I do this purely out of an inherent interest in deep, rigorous, clear, and self-consistent argumentation, for the benefit of all, and not out of an ulterior motive to tip the balance of Codidact’s moderation ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290924 |
Thank you.
Can the content of that post be added to the Codidact Site Policy page? https://meta.codidact.com/help
(more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290930 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Links to Codidact posts don’t auto-render with post title If I insert a URL to a Codidact post, I would like it to display the title of the post as inline text, hyperlinked to the post, without me manually doing that. For example: https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/290921 vs. Could a philosophical zombie verify that it is a philosophical zombie? (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290929 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Proposals site is not listed on Codidact home page This site: https://proposals.codidact.com/ is not listed here: https://codidact.com/ and I think it should be. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290928 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What web dev tools were used in the making Ruby on Rails. The code is hosted on GitHub: https://github.com/codidact/qpixel I do not know what cloud provider it is deployed on. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #290888 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290923 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290923 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290923 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
How are site policies decided on Codidact? This Help page lists some site policies. screenshot of site policy webpage What governance system is in place to come to decisions about what the site policies are? screenshot of site organization structure - individuals, roles, and teams This picture displays an organisation structure. ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #287896 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290922 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
What is Codidact's policy regarding artificial intelligence-generated content? Is AI content banned, or allowed if attributed to an AI? Are there further contextual rules regarding AI, for example, how much of a post may consist of AI-composed content? Will the justificational principles behind these rules be available to read somewhere? (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290792 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Threaded comments are good for discussion but there’s no incentive to clean them up I personally am open to the idea of treating comments here exactly as we treat posts. Since they can be quite long, we should be able to vote, suggest edits, etc, as a way of facilitating that Codidact be self-moderating and self-optimizing; to encourage people to edit and improve comments. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288692 |
Strongly on board with this. Love how you broke it up into such a systematic analysis and taxonomization. I want to do similar things as well. (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290733 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290733 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290733 |
Post edited: tried to clarify and separate into separated questions. |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290736 |
I think there is a misunderstanding that I was advocating a feature where you publicly post half-finished drafts of ideas to be collaborated and refined with others, as some sort of other category of post type. The core focus of my post is about built-in refactoring functions or buttons (or at least ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290638 |
Post edited: I am trying to edit questions towards the "succinctness" goal. That said, I feel that having refactoring functions would be helpful. The above question can be split into a number of subquestions. |
— | 9 months ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #290638 |
Suggested edit: I am trying to edit questions towards the "succinctness" goal. That said, I feel that having refactoring functions would be helpful. The above question can be split into a number of subquestions. (more) |
helpful | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290759 |
I agree completely with the vision. Out of curiosity, do you think the current design lends itself towards that goal?
For example: if a post is downvoted, if we take that as an indicator that the community does not find it accords with the content principles of Codidact, is it sufficiently clear w... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290764 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Alternatives to the news feed taken as a default; the “attention economy” It is common nowadays for social technology to include a “feed” of some kind, most usually as the landing page upon logging in. One can without difficulty produce some conventional arguments in favor of this design choice: “It increases user engagement”, “It increases ‘visibility’” (the awareness tha... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290759 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Can you post a question just to answer it yourself? I haven’t seen anyone mention another reason to answer your own questions. I wish I knew a more scientific or technical term for it, but it’s commonly called the Rubber Duck principle, and I utterly swear by it. The idea that engaging in dialogue with interlocutors is profoundly beneficial to ... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290646 |
> People who actually need an answer to a question are often in a uniquely bad position to actually ask that question.
I agree strongly.
The nature of intellectual inquiry is often that you don’t know the questions that you’re supposed to be asking.
(Wouldn’t it be awesome if someone had as... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290756 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Could we adopt the domain “.cd”? How would people feel about a network-wide convention of abbreviated URLs having the form, `https://.cd`? For example, a shortened URL for a philosophy site would be `https://philosophy.cd`, along with the full URL of `https://philosophy.codidact.com`. (Or, maybe even shorter, `https://phil.cd`, o... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290751 |
Post edited: |
— | 9 months ago |
| Edit | Post #290751 | Initial revision | — | 9 months ago |
| Question | — |
Modular or “microservices” architecture I am interested in the idea that an extremely modular software architecture for Codidact could have the kind of general, self-propagating benefits that things like being free open-source have. To me, it increases the openness of the platform, for customizable use by users, and thus, also for contribu... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |