Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 20, 2025 at 4:12 comment added wizzwizz4 @IanKemp-SEkilledbyLLMs That was the catalyst, but the underlying systems (e.g. QPixel) were already being built before the inciting incidents that led to Codidact's founding. If not for those incidents, something like Codidact would still probably have been built, albeit perhaps a year or two later, and with stronger ties to Stack Exchange. Diversity is nearly always a good thing.
Dec 19, 2025 at 22:51 comment added Ian Kemp - SE killed by LLMs Codadict exists because Stack Exchange "management" decided to screw its sites' users over.
Dec 19, 2025 at 14:21 comment added wizzwizz4 @Richard That isn't at all why Codidact was founded. The Codidact website doesn't explain, but TopAnswers does: nothing in there about trying to hurt SE. Surpass, perhaps, but if the existence of Codidact and TopAnswers stops SE shooting itself in the foot quite so much, that's mission accomplished.
Dec 19, 2025 at 9:28 comment added Richard Why would we want to allow adverts for codidact, a site that was basically invented to try to screw SE over?
Dec 18, 2025 at 14:35 comment added JNat StaffMod Fair points! I'll take them all into consideration as I bring this up internally ^_^
Dec 17, 2025 at 14:43 comment added wizzwizz4 @JNat There is no clear line. MathOverflow does not run ads or have HNQs, so is functionally equivalent to Codidact. And I don't believe anti-competitive behaviour is reasonable for a company hosting communities based around collaborative knowledge-sharing. Stack Exchange made its name by competing on merit and genuinely being better: the only reason to forbid such advertisements is if you believe you cannot do that any more. (I, for one, see no reason you can't: the Codidact web interface is bad, TopAnswers isn't the same kind of thing as SE, and neither have large communities.)
Dec 17, 2025 at 11:47 comment added JNat StaffMod I'll need to double-check on whether that first stipulation still applies or not (I would guess some version of it might, since it basically means "you can't advertise for a 'competitor'" [by some definitions of 'competitor'] which feels like a reasonable restriction by most counts). I'll report back once I find out.
Dec 16, 2025 at 21:54 history answered wizzwizz4 CC BY-SA 4.0