Free market idea
July 26, 2024 12:08 PM Subscribe
I like 'smallweb' sites like this. They make me think that wafts arms around all this might all work out, or bits of it might.
I don't really get the site, but I think I get the metaphor (and the extensions to the metaphor implied by titles visible on the site). It's a bit of a minefield of 'error 5xx' for me at the moment though.
posted by BCMagee at 3:04 PM on July 26 [1 favorite]
I don't really get the site, but I think I get the metaphor (and the extensions to the metaphor implied by titles visible on the site). It's a bit of a minefield of 'error 5xx' for me at the moment though.
posted by BCMagee at 3:04 PM on July 26 [1 favorite]
reminds me of an xkcd:
I spent a long time thinking about how to design a system for long-term organization and storage of subject-specific informational resources without needing ongoing work from the experts who created them, only to realized I'd just reinvented libraries.
posted by HearHere at 3:08 PM on July 26 [3 favorites]
I spent a long time thinking about how to design a system for long-term organization and storage of subject-specific informational resources without needing ongoing work from the experts who created them, only to realized I'd just reinvented libraries.
posted by HearHere at 3:08 PM on July 26 [3 favorites]
Wow. It's as if Everything2 was rebuilt by a bunch of people who think that interfaces should be as complicated as possible.
posted by egypturnash at 5:00 PM on July 26 [2 favorites]
posted by egypturnash at 5:00 PM on July 26 [2 favorites]
Yeah, like an Everything2 where every post is made in the form of Outlook calendar meeting requests
posted by penduluum at 5:40 PM on July 26 [3 favorites]
posted by penduluum at 5:40 PM on July 26 [3 favorites]
I managed to wade through the embedded frames that contained several copies of their front page to finally get to the "Agora Architecture" section.
It's a list of three git repos with a one sentence description of the contents of each, using some system-specific jargon. No architecture of any kind is described or even alluded to. Below that is a description of how to boot an implementation on bare metal, by hand, uncontainerized, like a barbarian (or a developer who wants to tinker rather than deploy).
Below that, yet another of the spammed frames containing yet another copy of the front page, then what seems to be some kind of combination changelog / comments section.
I give this a readability score of roughly 2/10, a usability score in the low 1.1s, and a usefulness score in the mid -2500s. I sincerely wanted to be open to the idea of something new and weird. I mean, shit, I don't have a problem committing shit into a repo to keep track of it; but it requires things like Logseq which I deliberately determined weren't actually mature enough to be useful in the real world yet, and the output of this thing is utterly unparseable by the eye and the mind.
As best I can tell, they're trying to federate peoples' Logseq or Logseq clones (which they have decided is a "digital garden") into a not-a-wiki that they or someone else host. To do that, you email them. To do it yourself, you take their unfinished software and make it deployable in the real world for them. It's unspecified what the backing store is (see: zero architectural information) so, uh, good luck with that?
Man, I really want weird shit to thrive, and I wish people doing weird shit would just, I dunno, get in touch so they knew how to do weird shit really well?
posted by majick at 6:50 AM on July 27 [3 favorites]
It's a list of three git repos with a one sentence description of the contents of each, using some system-specific jargon. No architecture of any kind is described or even alluded to. Below that is a description of how to boot an implementation on bare metal, by hand, uncontainerized, like a barbarian (or a developer who wants to tinker rather than deploy).
Below that, yet another of the spammed frames containing yet another copy of the front page, then what seems to be some kind of combination changelog / comments section.
I give this a readability score of roughly 2/10, a usability score in the low 1.1s, and a usefulness score in the mid -2500s. I sincerely wanted to be open to the idea of something new and weird. I mean, shit, I don't have a problem committing shit into a repo to keep track of it; but it requires things like Logseq which I deliberately determined weren't actually mature enough to be useful in the real world yet, and the output of this thing is utterly unparseable by the eye and the mind.
As best I can tell, they're trying to federate peoples' Logseq or Logseq clones (which they have decided is a "digital garden") into a not-a-wiki that they or someone else host. To do that, you email them. To do it yourself, you take their unfinished software and make it deployable in the real world for them. It's unspecified what the backing store is (see: zero architectural information) so, uh, good luck with that?
Man, I really want weird shit to thrive, and I wish people doing weird shit would just, I dunno, get in touch so they knew how to do weird shit really well?
posted by majick at 6:50 AM on July 27 [3 favorites]
« Older Fix The Court, Finally | Lost files buried in abandoned plugins for ancient... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by krisjohn at 3:03 PM on July 26 [1 favorite]