Gregory's ServerIt's difficult to know how much I should talk about @spritely. The previous analysis wasn't about it, but it came up a little because our work there aligns directly with where things should go. For the most part, neither piece is about it. But it will come up more later on this time.
|
21 comments
 So the title of the piece I just wrote, yeah? It's "Re: Re: Bluesky and Decentralization" https://dustycloud.org/blog/re-re-bluesky-decentralization/ But the reason for that title is that I thought it was kind of funny that I was replying inline to a lot of @bnewbold's blogpost like it was an email thread Of course whenever I get some email subject like "Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Fwd: Re:" I'm like oh god I really don't want to read this thing and I thought, maybe I shouldn't name this blogpost that But @mlinksva told me that he thought it was funny and perfect and to keep it and so I did And so here we go, oh god again, not another reply in the email thread right? Well for my part this is the end, I am not *blogging* about this again, not on my blog Well not unless something *extremely* saucy and impossible to ignore happens Otherwise else this is it. THIS IS IT I PROMISE Also last time I hid three easter eggs in the thread, and I did that just because it was getting so *long* I thought it would be funny if I got replies that said "I found the egg" and at the end said "congrats you found all three eggs you collected the egg triforce, you can defeat gender ganon" This ended up turning out to be an interesting metric, one I was too lazy to *formally* measure, but I guess someone else could Friends I gotta tell you people loved the eggs in both places but the fediverse did way better on collecting the eggs Congratulations fediverse, you beat gender ganon But one way or another people did, after all, seem to actually read deep in the blogpost and especially deep in the thread, which leads to a question, why am I doing this to myself, why am I re-articulating what's already a long-ass blogpost into a long-ass thread? WHY AM I DOING IT AGAIN Well the last blogpost was 24 pages printed and took me 8 hours to summarize and this one is definitely shorter, it's only.. oh shit it's 20 pages oh fuck okay I've been awake since 4am and getting this post ready since 5am working 12 hour days lately haha it's no problem I'm gonna need more tea. One more meta thing before we get into it. I want to say up front: working on and building systems is deeply personal, and deeply emotional. We are talking about systems people pour their lives into. Trust me I know. It's worth doing a critique, but it's also worth acknowledging the human aspect. So anyway. We are going to get into it. And the further we go, the more serious my critiques are going to get. Just because I'm being nice doesn't mean my analysis won't be harsh at points. Nonetheless let's try to be decent to each other. We all deserve that. Thanks. 💜 If you can't tell, my narration style buries the lede quite a bit. So lemme tell you what you can expect up front: - Some fluffier bits I thought were good framing (cotd...) - A defense and analysis of my claim that Bluesky's approach explodes unsustainably ("quadratically") as you try to decentralize it (cotd ...) Oh yeah and just like last time I WILL NOT BE READING NOTIFICATIONS until I get through this Sorry, it's impossible. I'll never get through it otherwise. So see your comments on the other side! So yes, definitely burying the lede, we are now at "Interesting notes and helpful acknowledgements" Bear with me, we'll get to the deeper analysis, but this does help frame things I promise So first of all, @bnewbold was very nice: > I am so *happy* and grateful that Christine took the time to write up her thoughts and put them out in public. Her writing sheds light on substantive differences between protocols and projects, and raises the bar on analysis in this space. Aw thx 💜 WHOOPS I FRAGMENTED MY THREAD CONTINUE HERE: https://social.coop/@cwebber/113647312428959527   @cwebber @bnewbold It's cool to see this kind of reasoned back-and-forth on design, with the various intentions, requirements, non-requirements, and engineering compromises run through. I really appreciate reading it, and hopefully this helps at least some folks come to the realization that there are many ways to come at complex systems and how changes in requirements (or sometimes seemingly random small choices) can make large differences in the design you ultimately end up with. |
Anyway, for the most part the reason it'll come up more later is because @bnewbold specifically put an ask for me to talk about it in his piece. So it will, but later.
In the meanwhile, what I'm trying to say is that I'm a very tired and overworked woman and these are my words, not my work's.