[HN Gopher] Show HN: DevClad - A social-workspace platform for d...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: DevClad - A social-workspace platform for developers
DevClad[https://devclad.com] is a social-workspace platform for
developers to team up on projects and hackathons seamlessly. It
functions by matching you 1-on-1 with a compatible developer every
week :)
Author : tr1ll10nb1ll
Score : 63 points
Date : 2023-01-16 10:00 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| WesSouza wrote:
| The fact that submitting the forms keep them on screen and
| enabled is confusing, especially given you can submit using
| return.
| personjerry wrote:
| Is this like Lunchclub? https://lunchclub.com/
| tr1ll10nb1ll wrote:
| Similar. I took that as a starting point for the developer
| niche and I plan on turning it into something where developers
| can work on ideas together.
|
| I built an even more rough version of that here -
| https://connectdome.com (but then I realized I was dealing with
| feature-bloat) so now I'm experimenting a little slower.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| is connectdome still up and running or is it a dead project
| at this point?
|
| might wanna try it and compare to this one
| toyg wrote:
| *> connectdome.com
|
| OT, but that's an expertsexchange kind of domain...
| progx wrote:
| Services for developers? Good luck!
| Laaas wrote:
| When I try logging in with GitHub: This
| application will be able to read and write all user data. This
| includes the following: Private email addresses
| Private profile information Followers
|
| Seems odd?
| tr1ll10nb1ll wrote:
| Two things.
|
| 1. The page mentions: Github is only for login.
| To create an account, go to Signup.
|
| 2. It's completely optional to connect it. The reason it asks
| for all those permissions is because I'm planning to use it to
| integrate common Github actions in DevClad. Again, you don't
| need to do any of that. Optional.
| Laaas wrote:
| Thanks. I was imagining it'd use information from your GitHub
| account to match you better.
| steele wrote:
| We all know how this goes from dating websites... just a bunch of
| non-technical co-founders looking for easy matches or pretending
| to be developers to keep tabs on their former engineers. Bet
| there are tons of fake developer accounts too. We are not pieces
| of meat!
| ripperdoc wrote:
| Seems nice! I would prefer a twist of this more towards finding
| other's with an expertise you don't have yourself and having the
| option to center the conversation around a particular topic, and
| some expectation of sharing advice and expertise (not just
| chatting).
|
| There could be a paid model, or you could imagine a credit system
| where you also offer your own expertise and time to others in
| equal measure. That could still lead to finding things to work
| together on, but could also lead to learning, consulting gigs or
| just networking - with the added benefit of being immediately
| useful at work. But that maybe already exists somewhere?
| lol768 wrote:
| > Every week, you are matched with another dev using an ML
| algorithm for a 1 on 1 call.
|
| I must admit I rolled my eyes when I read "ML algorithm" since
| it's usually marketing bullshit. Seemingly it's unsupervised knn
| w/ Scikit Learn, mixing variables like "open to video calls",
| "location", "openness to ideas" and "timezone".
|
| Fairly neat.
| shultays wrote:
| What if it used an AI to match you instead? We can even run
| that AI on blockchain!
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| I literally can't even, trigger warning! I hope you are using
| that blockchain on an ethically sourced quantum computer
| using ethically raised qubits.
| me551ah wrote:
| Isn't "unsupervised knn w/ Scikit Learn" ML? Yes it's
| unsupervised and not a lot of effort was put into it, but it is
| still ML.
| saurik wrote:
| The usage of "usually" in the comment you are replying to is
| often paired with a "but/except" that I feel is implied here,
| and so they actually agree with you.
| tr1ll10nb1ll wrote:
| It indeed is. I'll try to find someone better at ML than me
| over time but I think this approach should serve well at least
| for the first 1k users or so if I'm not wrong.
| swyx wrote:
| maybe just say "similarity" rather than "ml algorithm" since
| that is what you are doing
| tr1ll10nb1ll wrote:
| From the POV of a marketing copy, I don't think that
| sticks. I could possibly change it on the Github, however.
| Or, elaborate on what is meant by an ML algorithm in the
| context of DevClad.
| jamessb wrote:
| > you are matched with another dev using an ML algorithm
|
| Could be simplified to just:
|
| > you are automatically matched with another dev
| tr1ll10nb1ll wrote:
| Fair point.
| Oras wrote:
| It can be a good prescreening recruitment platform where
| developers try to find other developers to join their team.
|
| With this kind of platform, you need to keep the quality and
| commitment high all the time, which is quite challenging. For
| example, I tried LunchClub for a few weeks, it was brilliant
| initially, but then you get those who canceled last minute or did
| not show up to the call and then stopped because I saw it as a
| waste of time.
| tr1ll10nb1ll wrote:
| This is so on point. I've thought about this a lot and it's
| definitely something I will aggressively pursue if I manage to
| have good engagement initially.
|
| The preliminary step before pursuing this would be allowing
| users to work on projects and hackathons (or at least, showcase
| projects better) on DevClad.
| juliushuijnk wrote:
| somewhat related to this https://adplist.org
| karmakaze wrote:
| I was wondering how you pair devs with similar interests and
| noticed that it says "using ML" exactly once. Is that the scope
| of it or are there settings?
|
| Seems I misunderstood completely. The site uses ML to do the
| matching and devs feed the ML how?
| cssanchez wrote:
| Just tried it and even though I hit save on step 2, nothing
| happened and it deleted everything when I went back to step 1...
| Hope you can figure it out.
| tr1ll10nb1ll wrote:
| I'll try replicating it.
|
| Update: It's a possibility you didn't hit Save on Step 1.
| selectnull wrote:
| I also had a problem. Figured it out by submitting with dev
| console open and reading HTTP response. There were no
| messages for errors: required fields, pronouns had a min
| lenght and stuff like that.
|
| Really like the idea and willing to try it out. Hope it works
| well. Good luck.
| Gys wrote:
| > you are matched with another dev using an ML algorithm for a 1
| on 1 call
|
| I was wondering why so complicated and how the model was
| learned...
|
| > https://github.com/DevClad-Inc/devclad/blob/main/apps/server...
|
| Aha, better indeed to rely on your own human learning ;-)
| geuis wrote:
| I'll just be honest. One on ones suck. We all mostly have to do
| it year after year with managers and it's a huge uncomfortable
| waste of time.
|
| Having to talk to some random person is even more awkward and a
| waste of time.
|
| Make it useful and group up 3-4 randos at a time. The best
| conversations happen in small groups.
| dewey wrote:
| The problem there isn't the tool ("one on one") but the
| surrounding process in your organization from what it sounds
| like.
|
| In my experience, having a weekly 1:1 with your manager works
| really well. If that's a frequent and regular occurrence,
| there's nothing uncomfortable about it.
|
| It's a weekly block of time where you can discuss the
| priorities, give feedback, talk about things outside of work or
| start salary negotiations or role changes. If there's a week
| where there's nothing new it'll just be 5 minutes long, but
| having a regular no-pressure event is a lot less stressful than
| having a scheduled 1:1 come out of nowhere or once or twice a
| year.
| geuis wrote:
| You completely missed my point. I'm not talking about
| managers, I'm talking about how fucking awkward it is to talk
| to people. We're mostly all a bunch of nerds. Lots of common
| ground, below average social skills. (I'm intentionally being
| facetious here.)
|
| Small groups of 3-4 people with similar interests are WAY
| easier to feel comfortable in and get interesting
| conversations going.
| dewey wrote:
| Even for "nerds" there are usually people where they don't
| feel awkward about talking to them (Friends, family, online
| regulars,...). My point is that by not making a 1:1 a big
| event but rather a regular occurrence it'll be just become
| part of a regular week, and not a big event or something to
| feel awkward about.
|
| This is very different to meeting an online stranger you
| have never interacted with every week.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| > This is very different to meeting an online stranger
| you have never interacted with every week.
|
| Isn't that what's happening in this app? From the landing
| page:
|
| > Every week, you are matched with another dev
| automatically for a 1 on 1 call.
|
| So it's going to super awkward for people that don't like
| cold starts with strangers. I agree with the other
| commenter but I've also seen responses in other comments
| that say some people prefer 1-on-1s to groups so I say,
| why not both? Just have a preference that says if you
| want to do 1-on-1 or a small group and let people choose.
| That way if you change your mind or want to try out the
| other type you can switch.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| As a suggestion you could also try and give users some levers on
| your matching algo.
|
| For example some people might be interested in matching up with
| someone similar. Some (like me) would like to talk to people
| doing different things, on different stacks, with different
| problem domains and find synergies/learning opportunities that
| way.
| tonnydourado wrote:
| OP: this is not a direct criticism of your idea or implementation
| (in fact, by the end, you might notice I'm not sure I even have a
| valid criticism here), just a general observation on a trend I
| feel is common on this sort of initiative.
|
| I don't know about y'all, but I hate this idea of random 1-on-1s.
| Nothing sends my anxiety levels to the freaking roof as the idea
| of having to talk alone to a complete stranger.
|
| Make it 3+ people, though, and I'm absolutely game for it. This
| is not about being
| reclusive/introverted/autistic/antisocial/whatever: I actually
| like socializing, and meeting new people (well, to a certain
| extent, but I digress). It's just that, at least for me, 1-on-1
| interactions are the most intense ones, even with people you
| know, let alone with strangers. Group interactions put much less
| pressure in each person, and it increases the chances of having
| at least one more extroverted person to lead the conversation.
|
| And yet, almost every single instance of this trope of "helping
| people connect through random pairings" is 1-on-1.
|
| Maybe I'm the exception here, or maybe it's easier to implement
| 1-on-1 pairings, I don't know. But I'd love to see more things
| like this, but that didn't promote one of my worst nightmares as
| a feature.
| brudgers wrote:
| _Nothing sends my anxiety levels to the freaking roof as the
| idea of having to talk alone to a complete stranger._
|
| Gaining experiences through the platform might be a useful tool
| for mitigating that anxiety.
|
| But if you have a therapist, maybe talk to them first. Or not.
| Or you don't.
|
| My point being that learning as an adult means breaking habits,
| jumping into situations that you habitually avoid, and
| generally doing things that you are either bad at or put you at
| discomfort.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Just to add myself to the contrasting voices: I used to be like
| you but nowadays I enjoy the idea of 1-on-1s with strangers.
|
| Perhaps what changed for me was accumulating knowledge and
| experience over the years by simply being very curious about
| all sorts of things. Thus I found that I don't even have to try
| anymore, my natural curiosity + experience automatically leads
| me through such encounters all the while being fully aware of
| the risk of being confronted with an absolute nutcase which
| only makes things a little more exciting.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| To bring a contrasting perspective, I see nothing weird about
| meeting people one-to-one, and I see it as the most natural and
| efficient process for discovering opportunities.
|
| I meet with potential co-founders on StartupSchool and
| customers for my consulting business one-on-one all the time.
| You shoot the shit for 10min, see if there is common ground,
| and take it from there. Nothing prevents you from connecting
| with a third person or more later!
|
| I'm interested in DevClad as it is and have added it to my to-
| do list to try in the coming weeks.
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| I'm much more comfortable with a one to one meetings, just to
| give another anecdata point
| flickster wrote:
| Same for me. In group situations I always have the pressure
| to talk so I am not overtalked by other people. This
| obviously depends on the group, but that's gow I usually
| feel. I also have a quite high "response latency" and people
| just tend to answer and share the stories quicker and more
| eagerly, so I feel often left out in those situations.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| one way this 1-on-1 evolved in the past was shared culture,
| aspirations, commitments.. you like the same music, you know
| you agree on some things, you are on the same (tribal+ sized)
| team.
|
| 1-on-1 can be a lot of stress - empathy on that
|
| computers attract .. what is the term "neuro-atypical" or
| something? one of the few times I really lost my patience was
| with an Ausberger-kind-of-guy.. I thought I was patient, I
| tried to be patient.. maybe there are some learned skills..
|
| limiting the scope of what the interaction involves, also can
| be constructive
| fernandotakai wrote:
| funny enough, i used to have MASSIVE anxiety spikes when i
| thought about talking to a random stranger 1-on-1, to the point
| where i would basically lock up.
|
| two things helped: i started taking CBD oil (with a medical
| prescription) and, more importantly, i started interviewing
| people at my last job, which meant i had to talk to strangers
| at least once a week.
|
| nowadays i still have some anxiety, but after making my self go
| through 1-on-1 interviews i got used to it, and now i actually
| enjoy it :)
| nicoburns wrote:
| > This is not about being
| reclusive/introverted/autistic/antisocial/whatever
|
| Sounds like it might be about being extraverted. It of course
| depends on the specific scenario, but introverts tend to be
| more comfortable 1 on 1 or in small groups, whereas extraverts
| tend to prefer small groups or large groups.
| hnbad wrote:
| Honestly? I'm not an extrovert at all but a group of 3+
| people makes it a lot easier to keep my distance and get a
| feel for how people are before engaging with them. For me
| this is very much an autism thing.
|
| When going to conferences I've made it a habit to try to talk
| to new people on every break out of principle (because after
| all, if I just want to watch the talks, usually there are
| recordings available afterwards or even a livestream, so
| they're a waste of money on their own). But approaching
| strangers standing alone is extremely awkward unless you have
| a plausible excuse (e.g. queuing) so the "open circle" group
| of 3+ people (i.e. keeping enough space while facing each
| other so at least another person can easily join) tends to
| work best.
|
| Being in a group of 3+ people also reduces the social anxiety
| of whether it's okay to back out because you're not
| abandoning the person specifically, while also making it
| easier for an additional person to join because there's
| already a conversation going so it's fine if you find that
| you have nothing to add.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| Tbh, it sounds like it might be about not wanting to connect
| _that bad_. Because if you want to connect _really bad_ (for
| romance, business, friendship, or what have you), you learn
| very quickly that one-to-one connections are not something
| you dispense with.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| There's an important distinction here between the concepts
| of "wanting to" and "knowing how to" and how they impact
| someone's decision to attempt something. For example, your
| car may break down and you may ultimately decide to have it
| towed to a garage and repaired by a mechanic even though
| you may very badly "want to" repair it yourself. You make
| that decision because you understand that you do not "know
| how to" fix it yourself. The outcome of that scenario can
| be very different based on the degree to which you want to
| or know how to approach it.
|
| Similarly, someone who decides to avoid a one on one
| interaction with someone may very badly want to make a
| connection with someone else but they decide not to because
| they don't know how to appropriately handle such a
| situation. This may not be entirely anxiety driven since
| many people will have repeatedly attempted one on one
| connections and failed badly, leading them to believe
| perhaps rightly that they don't know how to and so they
| must lean on some other device such as socializing only in
| group settings where they can build off of others' social
| skills.
|
| I'm not saying it's impossible for anyone to learn how to
| successfully connect one on one with others, I'm just
| asking that you not assume that everyone has the same
| learned skills and knowledge that you do.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| I am getting lost in all these semantic considerations.
|
| How can you build a business or form a romantic
| relationship or a friendship without one-to-one
| connections?
| nicoburns wrote:
| I think the TLDR is that you might WANT to build a
| business, form romantic relationship or friendships, but
| not have the skills to do so or else be uncomfortable
| with the process of getting to that point (despite
| wanting the end result).
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Group chats also reduce the likelihood for abuse, which is why
| all prevention nowadays requires more than two people present
| in abuse-prone situations like locker rooms etc.
| mr90210 wrote:
| I personally don't do well on group chats, I am also an
| introvert but I feel that I am able to better connect with
| people on a 1-to-1 capacity.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-16 23:02 UTC)