Nostr

Replying to

Laeserin

You are forgetting that it is kind 24, so clients have to purposefully implement it, for it to appear.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

haha, you know how i feel about kinds.

special, retarded tags for commie bureaucrats of the nostr authority

it might be normalized for you but it will never be normalized for me.

data structure theory has been probably my second great love after low level GUI and input/network interfaces, and third love was the application of that in creating interactive systems

and i'm not participating in the nip circus. i will design my kind 1 events to interop reasonably with other clients where there is a reason to, but disregard the bad parts of the design.

i want to get in their face, as well as win allegiances to others who have been stepped on by them

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

also, i'm not doing the typical boy thing of trying to help the girl.

you just inspired me, so the relation here is muse and poet.

Laeserin 5mo ago

Mleku, we're dev friends. You don't need an excuse, to talk with me about our pet hobby.

I just disagree. I see a point of the kind number, but also the m/M tags (the AI automatically understands the purpose of the sample events, when they're in the json, for example).

Kind includes use case information and you'd have to find some way to sub for that, but it is best-defined with a key, so that it can be independently and asyncronously defined without a central authority.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

see, that's my point

a kind number needs a registry more than a descriptive tag name. a P tag would be perfect to signify protocol. you don't need permission to put "P":"stella's awesome protocol" and nobody is gonna fight with you about that (i'm just being silly regarding the actual name but the point holds).

kind numbers are supposed to signify protocols so when you look at what people have designed, there is protocols with multiple tags and protocols with single, ever increasing varieties of tags. the semantics of tags and kinds are clearly intertwined. kinds are just a kind of tag, IMO.

it has lost its meaning because nobody defined one. it is indexed, it can be filtered the same way as a single letter tag, and its semantics are absolutely intolerably ambiguous, and not human readable.

dealing with making a reasonable index of them in my codebase was one of the most tedious tasks of the whole thing, second only to debugging.