If you’ve seen the (relative) deluge of journal retractions over the past couple of years, you’re probably wondering why science is broken. FiveThirtyEight is here to tell you that it’s not, explaining the peer review process and the various ways in which it works or doesn’t. Of particular note are the issues concerning either purposeful statistical manipulation of data or just plain old confirmation bias: If you tweaked the variables until you proved that Democrats are good for the economy, congrats; go vote for Hillary Clinton with a sense of purpose.
A while back I tweeted a link to a project I was calling Founding Users. In short, the idea was that new startups needed a solid set of users that would use the product before anyone else and evangelize the product to others. It would employ in-person meetings where a few startups would pitch to a set of users who would eventually become the founding users for each startup. I developed the idea a bit, set up a site to gauge interest and talked to some people who were better connected to the startup world than I.
So, back when news traveled around that Delicious was being killed off by Yahoo, andre torrez had this great idea to come up with a list of todo items that one would have to do to clone Delicious. I’m not sure if anything ever came from it, but I like the idea of disconnected brainstorming - andre did some thinking about what you’d need but he doesn’t want to do the engineering related work for it so he’s put his ideas out there in case there’s someone who has more time or interest.