The first version of an academic website usually appears at a particular moment: a job market, a conference, a grant application. It is designed to look finished. Then it stays finished for years.
I understand the impulse. A personal site is a claim about who you are, and claims are easier to make when they are polished. But research is not polished. It is a sequence of partial answers, abandoned methods, and corrections.
Three commitments
This site is an attempt to work in the open without turning every thought into a performance. Three commitments follow.
- Date the thinking. Notes carry a date because ideas change.
- Show the tools. Methods and code are part of the argument, not an appendix.
- Keep a changelog. The site is versioned; corrections are visible.
None of this replaces peer review. A website is not a journal. But it can make the space between publications more legible — the questions, the dead ends, the small tools that make a result possible.
The point is not to publish faster. The point is to leave a better trail.
This first version is deliberately small. The source is on GitHub. If something is wrong, the most useful response is an issue or an email, not a silent correction in a private file.