https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg

I’m with you.

I think GP has one or two good points about shortcomings of the existing distributed platforms, but I also think these things can be addressed. For example, a centralized system’s single namespace for usernames brings advantages for both identity and usability. This would be harder for a distributed system to implement, of course, but it’s not impossible.

That would effectively lock participation behind Discord’s terms and conditions. No thanks.

(But thanks for sharing that info. :)

Conal’s point is that no, in fact there are almost zero programmers that fully understand even the simplest Python code

Can you summarize the reasoning there, for those of us who are mildly curious what you’re talking about but don’t have time to spend on a podcast?

By “fully understand”, does he mean knowing exactly how data are being laid out in memory, or when it is reclaimed? Knowing exactly what CPU instructions are being executed, registers used, and stack frames created behind the abstractions? Something else?

since it is a dynamically typed language.

What does Python’s type system have to do with it? Python doesn’t quietly convert objects of one type to another behind your back, like some other languages do.

What concerns me is your condescending tone.

I didn’t read condescension in that comment. It’s possible that none was intended.

Is there anything in Bluesky’s design that prevents the company from attracting a critical mass of users and then restricting federation, or cutting it off entirely?

I have no concerns about it.

• It is well-known.
• It is completely open.
• It has been in wide use for decades.
• In that time, there has never been a reason to believe it’s malicious.
• It is not an encryption tool, but an add-on for denying actions that would otherwise be allowed.

It’s not unusual for US government agencies to develop or fund technologies that end up used by the whole world. The internet is another example.