“how would women use our protocol?”
“oh, right, women, shit. uh, I guess they could use it for dating men?”
“yeah, that’s a pretty good one, any other ideas?”
“do women even do anything else?”
“hmmm… I guess not that I’m aware of, no”
“all right then let’s go with that one”user story: “as a woman, I want it in pink”
“hey are there any safety issues women face while dating that our design doesn’t address?” “no, why? the protocol sends a vague rejection notice to the guy and no rational actor would get incredibly angry and do something dangerous in real life because of a vague rejection” “HMMMMM okay!”
I’m acausally making the face you make when you bite into a lemon like an apple
Go out and speak to real users. Yes, even girls. Users are real people - they aren’t cyphers for your fantasies.
Pretty good general advice and not just in this amusing context.
yes, everyone knows users are actually cyphers for your annual review
This is likely from one of the (many) DID specs.
Which was basically the W3C going like “You want a new spec for shoving arbitrary data and arbitrary protocols into URL-like strings for blockchain-y sorts of reasons? And a seperate spec for each individual case you come up with? Sure go for it! Have fun kids :D”.
It’s the worst set of specifications I’ve ever looked at, and I’ve read CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1’s non-normative meta viewport parsing algorithm so…
Since I can’t El Goog search the story it was probably removed from whatever document it was in at some point. I did find the DID Use-Case spec but I couldn’t find this particular story in it. https://www.w3.org/TR/did-use-cases/#uc
DID is fucking amazing. I spent years following the blockchain identity scam, which is basically to sell centralized management of a “decentralised” identity system, such that you can’t be blamed if it doesn’t work and you get paid.
Decentralised identity is a scam. Either customer service is possible, meaning central control, or you lose your entire bureaucratic identity when you drop your iphone in a puddle. It turns out the dreams of libertarians are incoherent
The DID spec is basically not specified - anything that does anything is per-vendor. So for a long time, the only implementation of DID was Microsoft’s, with a hard dependency on an Active Directory server at Azure.
Bluesky was started by rationalist neoreactionary coiners, so they tried blockchaining. They needed an ID spec and thought “DID’s a spec, right?” The Bluesky (or AT Protocol) implementation is that your ID on their completely decentralised social network - decentralisation coming real soon! - is not name@server, but a hash stored at a central server that Bluesky runs. Now you might think that Bluesky’s completely decentralised social network has extremely centralised control of a very important aspect of things. Bluesky’s implementation has no blockchainery left to it - but they directly credit the dumb W3C spec.
the fucking DID spec! for some reason I spent a weekend drinking and reading the DID spec and one of its even worse offshoots and it’s all filler. the offshoot spec spent more time describing the icon compliant apps should use than anything technical! and lately I keep seeing DID get dug up by random people trying to get it shoved into activitypub for no reason! the fucking things the crypto fuckers did to technical writing… and now the AI fuckers are doing even worse to scientific writing
I’m not looking but was it the DID spec that included critically important information like how to pronounce their jargon words?
that’s the one! I can’t remember the title of the spec for the life of me but now I’m tempted to try and find it on masto
oh my god I fucking found it https://identity.foundation/didcomm-messaging/spec/ this needs to be a buttcoin thread (it may have already been a TechTakes thread too? but it deserves another look)
I think I recall seeing something in a subthread somewhere, can’t remember if that was here or elsewhere on fedi
definitely worthy of its own thread too, based on some of the stuff I’ve seen people mention
make more money in vr than djing.
lol sure. Of course only one of these people is actually interesting. (I also know some programmers who also djed on the side so it is just a very weird bias thing coming forward from the writer of that fictional story (there is also the whole ‘women are just looking for a provider’ thing part))
