Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.
Activity for Monica Cellio
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #292857 | Initial revision | — | about 1 month ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Why was the codidact proposals down all day An incident postmortem with more details was posted on the blog (on Meta) today. (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Edit | Post #288582 |
Post edited: fixed variable that crept in |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Edit | Post #288580 |
Post edited: fixed variable that crept in |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Edit | Post #288584 |
Post edited: fixed variable that crept in |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #292731 |
And long-term damage, in addition to being a permanent cost for a temporary (one-time) gain, gets in the way more directly: you won't *stay* an Olympic sprinter for long if you start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292720 |
I was coming here to suggest essentially the same cost; I was thinking of it more as "karmic debt", meaning you robbed your future good probability to apply it here and now something's going to go against you. This answer explains it much better, thanks. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292499 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292675 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289081 |
[Should Accounting merge into Finance?](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/292571) (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #288604 |
Post edited: moving the contact link out of the footer (doesn't apply on other networks) and putting it here |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292424 |
If everyone were to agree, we would launch Worldbuilding (which people also need to agree to), and then have a database ninja move everything from SciSpec into wherever we decide on the new community (presumably a "science-only" category, name TBD), and we'd have a web ninja make URL redirects work. ... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292424 |
@#53970 I'm glad you got back in (and have asked for help with the problem you were seeing in a different browser). The suggestion to merge SciSpec into a new WB community is recent. It looks like the idea is well-received on SciSpec so far (see Lundin's link). We want to give folks there time to ... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292572 |
@#85389 my goal is to elicit either activity (incubator Q&A) or a better understanding of why we're not getting that activity. Just saying "I'm interested" without posting doesn't help very much, though using the reactions on the proposal to indicate interest helps us gauge who is already here and i... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292580 |
I added to the guidance that anonymous users see. If you share a link to the proposal, [this](https://proposals.codidact.com/uploads/igtz248vf1wgl4hvyv6io4b18fyl) is now what people will see (before signing in). This is part of site configuration (no code changes required), so please let me know how... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292577 |
Post edited: proposal tag |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292560 |
Post edited: proposal tag |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292580 |
Instead of pointing people interested in a single community to the whole collection of proposals, you could give them the tag link. That's not perfect (it would be better to have a filter embedded in a URL, so they'd see the Incubator Q&A category but with just those questions), but I'd need to get ... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292569 |
Post edited: |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292573 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
Is Artificial Life alive? Artificial Life, a community for "the cross-disciplinary study of life and its abstract processes, distinct from but cross-informed by the specific instance of life that is studied as Biology", was proposed about a year ago but has no incubator posts. From the description, artificial life is a real ... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292572 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
Does the Invasive Species proposal have support? Invasive Species was proposed almost a year ago but has no incubator posts. The proposal includes outlines (titles) of sample questions that would be on-topic, but they haven't been developed into full questions yet. Comments question whether this proposal is too specific to support a community, bu... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292571 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
Should Accounting merge into Finance? Accounting was proposed about a year ago, but there have been no posts in the incubator. A comment on the proposal suggests that accounting should be within the scope of Finance. There is no overlap among those watching these two proposals (two Accounting, three Finance). Finance has some incubato... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292570 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
Is the Open Source proposal currently viable? Open Source Software was proposed about a year ago. Ten people have joined or are watching, which might be a record here, but there have been no posts in the incubator. The description is: > A site for people to ask about the open-source ecosystem, licensing, and other topics related to open-sou... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292569 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
What should we do with older proposals that have no incubator activity? We have several proposals that were made a long time ago but haven't had any incubator posts at all. That wasn't a use case we anticipated; we expected that proposals might be slow to build and that's fine, but we didn't expect zero activity. The incubator is an important part of the process, the p... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292563 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What's the least traumatic way to integrate resurrected historical humans into modern society? Most recent first, and with a support structure. Somebody who died 3000 years ago will be baffled by today's world. Somebody who died last week probably won't be. So don't start with the ones from 3000 years ago. Start with the most-recently departed, teach them the essential post-mortem chan... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292557 |
Number: "leaders want to bring back as many past people *as will fit*". I want to abstract away what that number *is*, because there are so many unknowns. The world's population has doubled within the last 50 years and recently we've been adding a billion every ~12 years, so while this obviously isn... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292552 |
Post edited: addressing comments |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292552 |
That's a very good point, thanks. Will edit. (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292552 |
Sorry, that was an editing error -- no cutoff intended; rhetoric got away from me. :-) Will fix. (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292552 |
A broader version of this question was closed on SE, though I thought it was answerable and I answered it. I'm planning to bring my answer over here, but I want to test-drive the reworked question first. (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292552 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
What's the least traumatic way to integrate resurrected historical humans into modern society? In a fictional alternate version of present-day Earth, scientists have found a way to resurrect people from the past en masse. The resurrected will have bodies that resemble their original ones but reset to a viable state (not about to die from whatever killed them, and they won't carry communicable... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292466 |
Agreed -- just names aren't useful, but if you're building up a list of options for worldbuilders to consider, with the relevant context, that could be useful. Maybe your organizing principle is tech level (this is what you can expect at a bronze-age level, etc), or geography (this is what you can e... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292466 |
Ah, I didn't realize the scale. Is it divisible (larger categories)? Given wiki posts, you can also have wiki posts that link to other wiki posts... but I think we'd need to explore a mockup to work it out. (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292389 | Post undeleted | — | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292424 |
@#8049 that makes sense. Would you be interested in bringing it up on SciSpec Meta to see what folks there think? (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292424 |
@#8049 I was wondering about that too. Obviously it would need to be discussed on SciSpec Meta, but what do you think about having a Worldbuilding community with a separate category for science-based (rigorous science would then fold into that)? So the general Q&A could be broad, but there would be... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292487 |
Let's restore the proposal and I'll work on getting it disconnected from your account, ok? (I can't do that directly, so there will be a delay, sorry.) (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292499 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Proposal authors can cause disruption by deleting their proposal Thanks for pointing this out. I think this is a broader problem than just proposals: wiki posts are intended to be community-owned, so the original author shouldn't have any special privileges on the post. Ideally, wiki posts would be ownerless. Edit 2024-10-02: posts with the "freely editable" se... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292483 |
The posts in the Descriptions category here use the wiki post type. Wiki posts don't have votes; the idea is to collaboratively edit a post (think article). You wouldn't ask a question but instead start a post like "design for fire-breathing dragons", and then in the post start identifying the sub-... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292478 |
That's not really what "dangerous" is for, and also, since it shows the people who are following a proposal, it looks like an answer to me. (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292480 |
I don't know of one. A new Meta post is good, thanks. (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292480 |
The close notice does provide guidance. Maybe it needs to provide more or better guidance -- suggestions welcome (on Meta). For example:
> This question cannot be answered in its current form, because critical information is missing.
> This post contains multiple questions or has many possibl... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |