I've struggled tremendously with this for years and many ideas I had either have ended up not being published or just forgotten. By now I'm the co-author of ~16 (peer-reviewed or in review...) papers, with varying time investment, contributions and success. I still haven't published any informal writing under my own name, but co-lead the development of a moderately successful software package.
My recommendation would be to focus on one idea or one project and figure out whether you understand the problem space and the existing solutions well enough that you are sure that what you are doing meaningfully improves or goes beyond the current way of doing things. If it does, people with the same problem will take notice, give feedback etc. Some of the research papers I was involved in even lead to several job offers, invitations to give talks, interviews and quotes in popsci literature etc. (and briefly were on the front-page of this site). Twitter is surprisingly useful for this purpose as well, although of course this sort of already implies you have an existing network of people that know you or know what you are working on.
Of course peer-reviewed scientific contributions might be on the extreme end of content production. But at least to some degree my guess would be a similar logic applies to the creation of other content as well. Beginning with an idea, the idea has to pass through several filters for it to be considered worthy of a research effort and ultimate publication. Ideally you should be able to scrutinise an idea yourself, maybe do a prototype or begin writing a few paragraphs based on the premise of a piece. I regard ideas as separate from the actual manifestation in writing or code, however it can be extremely difficult or impossible to get an idea into a concrete instantiation. Ultimately you should be able to trust your own aesthetic or scientific judgement first, otherwise any kind of negative feedback can deter you.
I also strongly believe that quality is really the first thing to focus on, producing high quality content quickly should be a secondary optimisation goal, because as you gain experience, you will (hopefully) be able to naturally produce high quality writing / content with less effort and time investment. People will be able notice attention to detail and especially in the case of software you have to assume that for every issue that is raised a larger number of people encountered the same issue and never returned.
If you are primarily intending to write, there obviously is no better way to get better at writing than to actually write. Even if most of what you write you do not intent to publish.
There is more to be said, but in any case I can only encourage you to start. Since I have had a moderate amount of success in some instances, it has given me confidence to more freely share other work.
My recommendation would be to focus on one idea or one project and figure out whether you understand the problem space and the existing solutions well enough that you are sure that what you are doing meaningfully improves or goes beyond the current way of doing things. If it does, people with the same problem will take notice, give feedback etc. Some of the research papers I was involved in even lead to several job offers, invitations to give talks, interviews and quotes in popsci literature etc. (and briefly were on the front-page of this site). Twitter is surprisingly useful for this purpose as well, although of course this sort of already implies you have an existing network of people that know you or know what you are working on.
Of course peer-reviewed scientific contributions might be on the extreme end of content production. But at least to some degree my guess would be a similar logic applies to the creation of other content as well. Beginning with an idea, the idea has to pass through several filters for it to be considered worthy of a research effort and ultimate publication. Ideally you should be able to scrutinise an idea yourself, maybe do a prototype or begin writing a few paragraphs based on the premise of a piece. I regard ideas as separate from the actual manifestation in writing or code, however it can be extremely difficult or impossible to get an idea into a concrete instantiation. Ultimately you should be able to trust your own aesthetic or scientific judgement first, otherwise any kind of negative feedback can deter you.
I also strongly believe that quality is really the first thing to focus on, producing high quality content quickly should be a secondary optimisation goal, because as you gain experience, you will (hopefully) be able to naturally produce high quality writing / content with less effort and time investment. People will be able notice attention to detail and especially in the case of software you have to assume that for every issue that is raised a larger number of people encountered the same issue and never returned.
If you are primarily intending to write, there obviously is no better way to get better at writing than to actually write. Even if most of what you write you do not intent to publish.
There is more to be said, but in any case I can only encourage you to start. Since I have had a moderate amount of success in some instances, it has given me confidence to more freely share other work.