what about 'programming' or 'joel' sub-reddits?
I love to debate (reddit has saved my wife a regular earful), but I can't imagine surfing when I'm really "in the zone". I tend to do more directed documentation queries and explicitly avoid sites like reddit where I'm likely to become mired.
So yeah, for me posting frequency is inversely correlated with how busy I am. On the other hand, all of that reading, researching and debating generates a lot of new ideas.
(We all have a lot of experience dealing with hackers, after all.)
If they're not regularly "going dark", they may not have the focus to succeed at a startup.
don't up-vote *before* you commit a comment. News wipes the contents of the edit box.
Congrats to you and your team on launching the first Arc app regardless of how much of the stack is written in Arc.
Is Arc suited to writing its own IDE?
I do. I'm pretty sure the site, layout & idea have been inspired by the defection from lisp to python ~ http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rewritingreddit
As the site progresses it proves a point. That "Reddit" could have continued in Lisp had they persisted and that "Lisp -like languages", can still cut it.
But it has triggered my thinking about how to create dense communities around diverse knowledge areas. So it would be cool to do this with scientific papers and get people to register with university email addresses to generate trust and preserve fidelity. I know digg and reddit are pretty mainstream but allowing people to create specific knowledge networks on this platform would be cool. Where its an industry group or networking organisation it would be a great way to pool knowledge and if need be preserve the value of the information by requiring users to be trusted by at least one person.
As you can see, there is not much happening. In fact, the main lesson learned here was not that a reddit-like platform is not ideal to this type of knowledge pooling, but that the scientific community is in general skeptical about this type of information sharing. We did not require email address validation for logins (hence the spam you can see up there), but we did talk about it with a lot of people and there were good arguments on both sides. I talked with physicists, biologists and mathematicians about using this type of site, and the replies were mostly those of insecurity about sharing incomplete ideas: both because they might be wrong (and not many scientists like that), and because if they were right, they would rather keep it to themselves and publish it.
Actually Paul Ginsparg, the creator of arxiv.org, kind of warned us before we launched that it would take mostly a huge grass-roots effort to get scientists going on something like this. He was right, and from listening to some of his stories about how he started arxiv.org, it apparently took him over 5 years of grass-roots convincing before it took off, despite being clearly a very good idea.
If you are interested in scientific knowledge sharing, with an eye towards collaboration, check out openwetware.org, which uses the mediawiki wiki platform. Note that they actually do require account authentication, so have a lot less spam issues at this point. It seems like a wiki platform is more easily adopted for scientists (although still hesitantly), as the subreddit oww.reddit.com, which we tried to push to the openwetware community, has not taken off (this time because of concerns that Reddit is a company.)
Maybe I'll add that to the question in the application that asks for "any other ideas you've considered" :
I couldn't find the 'Reply' link for a moment -- and I'm not even THAT blind. ;) Looking forward to that update!