jamietanna, [pfefferle] and hhg joined the channel
#[snarfed]submitting the contest entry soon, npd (etc) lmk if you have any final suggestions. I revised the end of the "rel-me links" section to describe bidirectional linking etc a bit better, and other tweaks throughout. https://snarfed.org/bluesky-satellite-contest-entry
#[snarfed]I get that that's technically correct, but I don't know that it conveys the appropriate meaning to someone who doesn't know those details well
#[snarfed]people know what standards are; they don't know what W3C Notes are
#[snarfed]and realistically, W3C notes are standards
#[tantek]they're not though, explicitly so in their status section
#[snarfed]oh. then yeah the differences are even more confusing
#[tantek]I mean "It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress." is pretty clear
#[snarfed]then I don't know what to call it that outsiders will understand. guess Note is fine then
#[tantek]I feel "W3C Working Group Note" conveys that some level of openness and authority was used in the process, but not giving any misrepresentation of "standards" status
#[tantek]and if they really care they can click through and read the details in the Status section
#@PlinzThe supply of aggressive stupidity on social media is unlimited; trying to correct it is as futile as sweeping sand in the desert. Be deliberate: every pointless interaction is a missed opportunity for experiencing insight, love or beauty elsewhere. Don't fight what you can mute. (twitter.com/_/status/1433262733080743942)
#aaronpkWhat's really confusing is that IETF "standards" are RFCs -- "request for comments" -- which technically sounds like the opposite of a standard
#npd[m]isn't that lovely, though? I like it both as a historical quirk and as a reminder that no matter how stable your spec, we just hope it'll get followed voluntarily
#[tantek]"request for comment" also sounds like the implication of having a discoverable Webmention endpoint on your posts 🙂
#[tantek]social media << Criticism: 2017-08-15 MIT Technology Review: [https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/08/15/149854/eliminating-the-human/ Eliminating the Human] <blockquote>This is social interaction that isn’t really social. While Facebook and others frequently claim to offer connection, and do offer the appearance of it, the fact is a lot of social media is a ''simulation'' of real connection.</blockquote>
#[tantek]social media << ^ longer original posted by author on his own website: 2017-05-15 [https://davidbyrne.com/journal/eliminating-the-human ELIMINATING THE HUMAN] <blockquote>Social media is not really social—ticking boxes and having followers and getting feeds is NOT being social—it's a screen simulation of human interaction.</blockquote>
#capjamesg[d]I tested and your meta descriptions will be fine, and should be even in rare cases where none are directly provided.
#capjamesg[d]And any feed whose content is two directories away from the homepage and shows a list of h-entries from at least three weeks ago will be flagged as no index, follow.
raghavgururajan, [jeremycherfas], timdream, sm2n, n8chz, westie[d], alex__, maxwelljoslyn[d], tetov-irc, Moosadee, alex11, hendursaga and Seirdy joined the channel