Re: SI
As Biowatch mentioned, SI is now owned by iHub. SI has the same system administrators as iHub and it has a similar (but less powerful) user interface, giving it a strong superficial resemblance to iHub.
They are some important differences, however.
Posters on SI tend to emphasize “consensus building” rather than debate. I.e., SI is a good venue if you are looking for confirmation that your investment idea has merit, but it’s not an especially fruitful venue if you are seeking out reasons not to invest. Directly criticizing another poster’s stock picks is considered bad form on many SI threads, and hence it is rarely done.
Many SI biotech boards have been around for 10 years, longer than Yahoo boards and much longer than iHub. This gives some of these boards a clubby feel where posters talk to one another as though they’ve known each other since high school. The clubby ambience—when carried to an extreme—can be detrimental in that it reinforces the inbreeding of investment ideas.
SI is a good source of abstracts about basic research, and one of the better SI features is that there are boards devoted to specific medical indications as opposed to companies. However, SI is especially weak in its coverage of such topics as medical devices and Big Pharma.
Overall, SI is definitely worth reading, but it’s certainly not a substitute for iHub.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
