For me what destroyed it was a video about home-decorating 'life-hacks', and one was basically 'have a laundry chute' - great if you have one, but basically pointless otherwise as its almost impossible to retrofit to a house (or at least a standard UK home).
It was at that point I realised that to many people 'life hacks' are just 'things which are cool/I like' and not, as I understood, optimising your life (whatever that means).
In a multistory house, a laundry chute would definitely optimize ones life. If course it may not be easy to install a laundry chute. But I don't think that invalidates the life hack idea.
To me it was the "here is some cheap way to do something that one could do better and easier if they spend $5(or some other small nominal charge)"
I don't understand all these highly specific micro-sites that popped up on Stackechange.
Part of what makes Stackoverflow good is that it covers multiple subject areas, attracting many eyeballs from many different areas, and thereby having a huge amount of momentum from network effects and "social gravity".
Meanwhile all these other little sites are way too specific and have accordingly very small user bases. For example, there was no need to have separate sites for Stats, Data Science, Open Data, and AI. Nor does it make sense to have Software Recommendations be separate from Superuser. It just hurts the smaller communities IMO by driving fragmentation, and (horror of horrors) leads to duplicated questions across multiple sites. So much for being a high-quality archive of knowledge! More like a feudal kingdom of squabbling lords.
Maybe I'm just a misinformed outsider and there are good reasons for this pattern. But as a general user and former frequent-answer-er, I don't get it.
It got past A51, and quite a few people disagreed with that. I don't think it meets the bar for an SE site, but SE is somewhat hesitant to kill sites today. That is a good thing in most cases, but this particular site is just not a good idea and inherently leads to bad content.
