The issues we experiment with are usually quite broad - improvements to logging, routing - but the implementation is always more narrow. Still, it seems like there is still more room for more refinement and focus now that you mention it.
Yeah - we're doing something like one-on-ones that drive these explorations. Maybe we need to make the "20%" more formal.
The real missing part is discussed in the "knowledge building" link. I'm on board with Peter Naur's idea of building software, but it's very difficult to share individual knowledge with a team as it is being formed.
For example, reading someone's implementation as a work in progress is a different than reading an implementation that is a complete idea.
A work in progress is a lot easier to read with a design document in hand, but that design document that is full of assumptions that might be better explored in short feedback loops on production.
I haven't enjoyed the ecosystem of text editors on the web as much as I have local apps. HackMD was really hitting the sweet spot of simplicity and shareability.
I'll give it a shot. At first glance it seems like it has the simplicity of a text editor and all the sophistication has gone into collaboration. Kinda what web apps should be about.
Before folks jump on the business model aspect, one should keep in mind that many (all?) online communities go through a similar growth curve. Wikipedia included.
But this article goes into the details of what makes this feel different. Quora is aesthetically much worse than it ever was.
I wrote "What Punch Cards Teach Us About AI Risk", and I was really surprised -- and frankly, disappointed -- that they pulled it. It was the #1 story on Lobsters when they pulled it, with plenty of comments (and some good discussion!). It was also shocking to me that their moderation involves scrubbing it from the site entirely; at least on HN, the story can get modded down, but if people still wish to discuss the topic, they can. (And in fact, I have seen some discussions that were too hot cool down and become reasonable when the stories themselves have been modded down.)
The whole thing left me with a very sour taste (and not for the first time!) about Lobsters. I will continue to check in there from time to time, but I will hesitate to submit stories or participate in discussion: the moderators are simply too capricious for my tastes -- and we clearly disagree about what is on topic and what is off topic for technologists. Conversely: Lobsters has reminded me how much I appreciate HN; thank you dang and other HN mods for everything you do!
"What are you working on this week?" is a weekly thread since forever where people often talk about computing anyways.
I don't see why moderating posts should be fair. Better to remove a few good stories by accident than to leave up trash. You'll never have enough time to read all good ones anyways. They're very careful with banning though.
Prefect combination with Article 45 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/11/article-45-will-roll-b...). You can roam around EU versions of websites that rely on government own certificate authorities and allow you to log in with your eIDAS id - which will be a requirement for all "very large online platforms."
You might try Brave New Europe? They don't look at tech specifically like EFF, but tech touches their stories on economics, regulation, and the media: https://braveneweurope.com/?s=tech
