Re^2: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Posts are assigned to sections based not on their subject matter but on their type of discourse.

How does that gel with "I like the idea of having the site explicitly support multiple use/view modes"?

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Comment on Re^2: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 05, 2015 at 19:42 UTC
The "types of discourse" are top-level divisions, chosen by the OP: (1) asking for advice/assistance; (2) sharing (more or less) finished code; (3) thinking out loud... The "multiple use/view modes" would be much finer grained -- essentially consisting of heuristically filtering individual nodes from view, using predicates customized by the user. So they're pretty much orthogonal, afaict. I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 05, 2015 at 19:42 UTC

The "types of discourse" are top-level divisions, chosen by the OP: (1) asking for advice/assistance; (2) sharing (more or less) finished code; (3) thinking out loud...

The "multiple use/view modes" would be much finer grained -- essentially consisting of heuristically filtering individual nodes from view, using predicates customized by the user.

So they're pretty much orthogonal, afaict.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

[reply]