If half-hearted attempts are doomed (plausible), or more generally we’re operating in a region where expected returns on invested effort are superlinear (plausible), then it might be best to commit hard to projects (>1 full-time programmer) sequentially.
Does that take into account, for example, Arbital seeming less promising to people / getting less engagement, because all the users have just sunk energy into trying to get by on a revived LW?
There’s an intuition pump I could make that I haven’t fully fleshed out yet, that goes something like,
If both Arbital and Lesswrong get worked on, then whichever seems more promising or better to use will gain more traction and end out on top in a very natural way, without having to go through an explicit failure of the other one.
There’s caveats/responses to that as well of course — it just doesn’t seem 100% clear cut to me.
If half-hearted attempts are doomed (plausible), or more generally we’re operating in a region where expected returns on invested effort are superlinear (plausible), then it might be best to commit hard to projects (>1 full-time programmer) sequentially.
Does that take into account, for example, Arbital seeming less promising to people / getting less engagement, because all the users have just sunk energy into trying to get by on a revived LW?
There’s an intuition pump I could make that I haven’t fully fleshed out yet, that goes something like, If both Arbital and Lesswrong get worked on, then whichever seems more promising or better to use will gain more traction and end out on top in a very natural way, without having to go through an explicit failure of the other one.
There’s caveats/responses to that as well of course — it just doesn’t seem 100% clear cut to me.