blipblop

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by blipblop 9y ago

   > but almost everybody agrees it is flawed as a language. If that's the future, we are screwed as an industry. What language is not flawed? And why are we "screwed"? I don't get this FUD...there are more important thi
2. 2.▲
   by blipblop 9y ago

   I have found that revisiting the same documents during regular meetings works best. First starting at a high-level overview of the projects/milestones/deadlines/customers and then drilling down in the detail. > Know what e
3. 3.▲
   by blipblop 10y ago

   Hey this is an awesome idea! Each side could vote for articles they think are biased or not biased. Then you are shown the ones where there is the strongest disagreement between each side. Another idea is to allow each sentence or paragraph
4. 4.▲
   by blipblop 10y ago

   The key is to apply DRY principles to argumentation. If someone makes a claim, you should be able to hyperlink to it where the argument has already been explained. Then each participant can "agree" or "disagree" with eac
5. 5.▲
   by blipblop 10y ago

   I think the key to solving this is to "branch" off the arguments that depend on a contentious topic such as "denying moon landings". So instead of having to prove moon landings don't exist, there would be one branch
6. 6.▲
   by blipblop 10y ago

   harigov: very interested. you should setup a Discord channel to discuss further.