I've finally been able to make an extensible `quasiquote` built on what I call hypersnippets. I've also referred to this as "higher-quasiquotation-shaped syntax" in the past, and lately I understand that my hypersnippets are the exact same thing as what people already refer to as "opetopes" in higher category theory.

And impacting newbies does not appear to be considered in "focus on and develop our unique points of experimental language hacking". So...

Personally I find the term 'ethical repository' offensive. It insinuates that non-free software is unethical when the majority of non-free software has no nefarious intent or code. Not exactly the greatest sales pitch in my book.

> It might actually help some, since separating more could allow us to really focus on and develop our unique points of experimental language hacking.

The only reasons for thinking about it now are that 1) we want to add some features to the forum, and there's no way to test them here, and 2) it isn't actually a bad idea to have a community site for Anarki. The risk of weakening the community has deterred me from the idea of forking the arc forum, but if we still treat this as the 'official' arc community, and make a separate site more focused around anarki, I don't think that would be too bad.

  (= (mytable 'key) nil)

Apparently it's (rem test table) but everything I've tried fails with "Can't take car of #hash(("foo" . (app-run "foo")))" I also thought I might have to assign nil to it but that returns an error as well. Here is my current code if it helps... it's just minor edits of prompt.arc, assignment and running an app in a hook all work:

    (def app-unhook (user app)
      (do ((rem !app hooks*) 
          (editor-page user "Hook removed from " app))))

    (def app-hook (user app) 
      (if (file-exists (app-filepath app))
        (do ((= (hooks* app) `(app-run ,app))
            (editor-page user "Hook applied to " app)))
        (editor-page user "Error: No application " app)))

You can also see from here:

https://blog.ycombinator.com/two-hn-announcements/

  Today’s new feature lets users rescue [dead] posts on a 
  case by case basis. Beside the ‘flag’ link, you’ll see a 
  ‘vouch’ link to click when a post should not be [dead]. 
  When enough users vouch for a post, the software will 
  unkill it. Think of vouches as the inverse of flags: a 
  flag says that a post shouldn’t be on HN; a vouch says it 
  should.""

I was about to say that an outage might risk killing the community, which would be bad, but 1) we still have this forum and GitHub (as krapp points out), and 2) if the community is really so weak that it can't revert a commit in order to get the forum running again, it's probably not worth hosting a separate site anyway.

The idea is growing on me, just because of how audacious it is. (^^)

I do agree with some of your point though; it would be good to have some separate logging and bootstrap systems in place so that we can detect and repair faults more easily, without the intervention of a specific admin. For one thing, the software that pulls the changes will probably not be arc-based, so it should still be running even if the forum goes down. Secondly, we could try to set it up so that it always pulls hotfix patches immediately when the logging / monitor system indicates failure.

So unless these tests could prove that the forum would work (which is highly unlikely) then my vote would be not to do this. It's akin to putting the services issue logging/tracking system under the same service [1]. It's a bad idea IMO.

    cd $(dirname "$0")

That is a valid concern. Perhaps, we could ask that if YC chooses to shut it down, could they at least give someone here a copy of the `www` folder?

Then someone could take over hosting this forum (which possibly might be on a different domain).

I have a somewhat reliable server running anyway, and it wouldn't be a problem for me to do this, but if someone else could do it, that would also be great.

    Put a symlink to this script somewhere in your path.