Soaking screams food poisoning to me; especially with unclean water. Perhaps this is not a risk if done right, but this could be why it's not done.
Definitely, for example if people are bikeshedding (vigorously discussing something that doesn't matter very much)
Another proposal: Visibility karma remains 1 to 1, and agreement karma acts as a weak multiplier when either positive or negative.
So:
Could also give karma on that basis.
However thinking about it, I think the result would be people would start using the visibility vote to express opinion even more...
A little ambiguous between "disagree karma & upvote karma should have equal weight" and "karma should have equal weight between people"
I think because the sorting is solely on karma, the line is "Everything above this is worth considering" / "Everything below this is not important" as opposed to "Everything above this is worth doing"
One situation I use strong votes for is whenever I do "upvote/disagree" or "downvote/agree". I do this to offset others who tend not to split their votes.
Just posting my reactions to reading this:
That's really high?? Oh - this is not the giving what we can pledge😅
At what stage of YC? I guess that will be answered later. EDIT:
.
Random, alphabetical, or date ordered? Not that it will really matter - although I guess I would expect the earlier pledgers to be more altruistic, maybe more risk taking though.
Ohhh ok 😂😅 Yeah that is funny and sad.
😑
Agree
This is interesting, and is naturally raised by this post (v. interesting by the way). It makes me wonder about their screening practices. I'm guessing a random like me can't sign up (they check one's net wealth somehow?) but perhaps that's all? If any billionaire can sign up, then maybe it's not really the giving pledge that one should criticize?