Timeline for answer to New site design and philosophy for Stack Overflow: Starting February 24, 2026 at beta.stackoverflow.com by M--
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 days ago | comment | added | 463035818_is_not_an_ai | When reading the annoucement I first read the orginal then some parts of the comments and then the updates and then I was totally baffled. This post explains why. Thanks. | |
| Feb 23 at 20:24 | comment | added | M-- | No. I meant he was generally a rational voice, with a clear vision about the future of the network and mostly good ideas (not just good at communication). | |
| Feb 23 at 18:19 | comment | added | peterh | I agree this in the sense that he has given us a clear view, what the company says or wants. He was like an upper contact. | |
| Feb 23 at 17:28 | comment | added | M-- | For the record, I remember Shog9 as a positive player, even when I disagreed with them, which was not as frequent as I find myself in utter disbelief when reading recent announcements, but not a rare occasion either. | |
| Feb 23 at 16:42 | comment | added | peterh | Even the "daemon" of the era, the employee whose mistake (wrongdoing?) has made the Monicagate, was written as a fair someone. A guy like Shog could explain the same to us, clearly and directly. We would not like it for sure, also I do not remember him as a positive player (he vehemently supported all the evil I fight since that), but it was at least something what we could understand. | |
| Feb 23 at 16:40 | comment | added | peterh | I think they would need a guy like Shog9. He would clearly, sometimes brutally say their version. They could be any hostile, being hostile while at least clearly communicating is better as doing the same on this declarative way. Once, while there was some mod semi-revolt, there was a mod representant, Aaron (?), also living in New York, who as representant of the mods, visited them face to face. He made a notes about, what do they said. It was not very bad, they reasoned everything rationally, mostly by citing corporate customs and business interests. | |
| Feb 21 at 15:52 | history | answered | M-- | CC BY-SA 4.0 |