@evan one example that illustrates just how much contention there is about even supposedly basic things: are activities content? one might argue they are the primary reason the specs exist at all, to publish activities to activity streams. someone else might equally argue that they are simply vehicles for distributed CRUD of notes, which are the real content. the specs currently support both interpretations. should one be closed as a loophole? is one an intentional misinterpretation? which one?

@evan maybe some examples would clarify what you mean, but i'm not sure how to define "the actual game" in a way that everyone would agree they're playing it. like, what counts as a "loophole" and what counts as a fundamental use case? what makes a conclusion "ridiculous", or an interpretation "intentionally misinterpret[ed]"? these questions all depend on the frame of reference of whoever's asking them. i generally assume good faith whenever these things are being discussed. should we not?

@evan the real question is how one properly represents a centaur tower under ActivityPub.

@evan 2x protocol decay in a row? 🤔

Is there any formalized approach on choosing actor type, or did you express your personal app-centric preference? Is there anything not app-centric to having a max. amount of app-centric 'profile fields'? Genuine questions. Am I holding it wrong when I say 'app-centric'?

@evan that’s a strong por Que no Los dos type of deal there

@evan See you there soon then!

@ainali yes!

@evan Are you going to the hackathon in Milan too?

@randulo homework, and just a little housework.

I spent all weekend doing homework and it was really satisfying but tomorrow I'm back to programming.