@freeschool sure, I spend a lot of time learning about the different designs of different systems and try to let people know about how they work.

This is my professional background, BTW, working on distributed systems. So I'm very interested in seeing what people are coming up with and, well, pointing out potential flaws that I see because hopefully it will lead to a better system in the end!

@volkris Nice... Thanks for reply. I think you might have the right idea and happy to find out more.

I do wonder about any 'system' beyond a certain point, where the users are constantly the weaker point. People are what needs improving more than ever.

It looks like you might have reached the top of combining things well in computing so "after" or during that (when you have any perfect system achieved), imagine it might not be enough or there are still the people to improve. Really connecting humans (not just as basic computer users) I think is what is consistently overlooked in design *or* once we have basic communication that is the clincher about how to really "connect" people as a kind of work past just computers... See what I mean?

Imagine we have the perfect system or enough already (could be this kind of communication of text, Jitsi, Keet etc) but static or moer one-way 'systems' isn't always enough - nobody is actively getting people together for daily / weekly stuff and this has it's limits and provides the way to people falling into just being a "user" or entertainment in that limited form (because there is nothing much beyond that to do). Which is why I think people play online games (it certainly was for e) as they feel together but it could be some other type of game of life called MineLife lol. Creating it if it doesn't exist.

I'm offering myself as the test case here and personal proof that on many levels of open infiltration (with people even with lack of expert skills) I can positively say the proof is like having all the Fediverse but not much back from it consistently . Despite for people wanting a lot in many things (some virtue-signalling for sure and it's natural) none is really building up people personally and even those open, they are one-waying it all (comms / projects / people etc).

In the longer talking between people people are improving. Ok doesn't have to be all the time, but not near-0 long work with others. I think there's a lot more to do beyond computer design. Mostly now it's head-down computer code being written and re-written constantly (devices instead of people) with the dangers of time passing and re-writing over the same stuff.

Contrast the other "darker" sides and what they are doing 'right', they are actually getting themselves together despite similar issues of trust, but believe enough to push through. And this is what I think people need to on the other side, filter each other out, believe in people / improve as we go / doing best we can etc. It can be as scientific / tangible but belief has to be their or trained. So talking to people from distance doesn't feel like anyone is going to die.

I'm not talking Elon Musk sorting here lol.... more Transformers or Xmen in being able to stick themselves together no matter what level or skills they are, because it's also mass that is being glued and connection to everyone else that we are forming over time, even loosely but more dedicated. That is powerful.

So all the while human relationship which is not really being sorted out here / mentality not incremented to evolve to more trusting stages has it's limits.

Trust is a big thing we could work on and can be tangible (like if I did something wrong, you could tell others and it could be more open in communication / reasoned feedback by people. Simple feedback system already exists as social or q&a form (which I'd be happy to provide others and I think more out there too)/

As quick example - what is killing us at the moment and can be improved in explaining:

The names of people online: When people are see nicknames or not telling other people their real name, it still trips people up today which is crazy. Even the avatar (before looking at profile).

It's almost the most basic internet thing to have pseudo-name / nickname and we need to show people it's not about the name and better their own sense of ability working with others, taking time looking at profile (or at least 10secnds) without such label things to see from profiles and talking to people we all can see so much more. (sorry for a bit of a tangent but genuinely this is hurting us and is like a mine exploding later down the line).
Practising online while being ok with Catlover845 or shittalkers66 is more important (both will have their + - points but not rejecting blind is what I mean). Even some activists today can't do without saying hello and demand real names and that is most bizarre as priority when they know the risks of names and jail-time happening (but still can't do it and pull the eject cord or panic button and quit out). Yes being transparent but not aesthetics that we can leave as just that or until really needed. LET ME KNOW IF WRONG IN THAT.

So I don't mean your stuff indirectly is bad or anything but the 'better people' work is perhaps the goal after 'better system' ?

Y / N / Maybe? How do you see it?

I guess I heard the "better system" part of at the end of what you said - obviously this isn't all of what represents you but we had enough tech for in quite a lot of ways, so what's changed? Not much perhaps in these other ways naturally to improve on (our own individual ways of contact / protocols).

More than ever it's better people we need now...

Without talking and stronger emotional people, all systems seem to find the same weakness - the user. On Fediverse, in-person wherever.

Even with perfect system, people are imperfect - we need to accept and keep that as the regular.

?

@freeschool Well keep in mind that part of the design philosophy engineered into this platform involves choices that don't put people at the center of the system. Instead, instances are at the center.

These are engineering decisions that were made, and I'm really critical of them. I would much rather put people at the center.

But that's not how this platform was programmed. And I think BlueSky chose the better path making it more person focused.

@volkris Yeah I get that first bit - you seem like you're doing excellent tech work but I mean both doing your thing AND manual labour of people-matching / etc at the same time 'somewhat' .

The last paragraph I'm not sure how BS make it person-focused unless they are really talking to them or doing the networking and circle manually themselves... (did I missed something there?)

Platform based stuff is not really what I mean or after that... Have you ever done that kind of thing?