Notices by Kit Redgrave 🕯 (kitredgrave@glitch.social), page 5

@keiyakins i mean the "is a lisp enviroment that happens to ship with a text editor" thing :p

like, atom but with lisp.

it'd also be complained about for being really memory-hungry :D

what if we had something like emacs but not bound to the assumption of a character mode terminal?

@aschmitz @srn the thing is that they currently can see things you write even if you block them, and that too isn't really a desirable state of affairs

@srn well the spec is wrong imo ;p that should be in it.

...but I don't see much of a reason why the spec should be written to disallow that, given as it isn't much of a help to just not have interactions but still have everything you say logged by people you blocked.

However, their server would not know to disallow interactions with activities on *your* server unless your server sends their server a block activity. And all this blurb says is that "servers SHOULD NOT deliver block activities to their object".

So, the Block activity could get picked up by the server, process it and make a note, and then not deliver that activity the rest of the way.

I only now notice that this is under the AP client-to-server section...

here's what i don't get. the text verbatim for blocks in the AP spec is:

6.9 Block Activity

The Block activity is used to indicate that the posting actor does not want another actor (defined in the object property) to be able to interact with objects posted by the actor posting the Block activity. The server SHOULD prevent the blocked user from interacting with any object posted by the actor.

Servers SHOULD NOT deliver Block Activities to their object.

@catgirl ah. a limo tho?? on new york streets??

@catoutofbed @SilviaFox oh nice! :3 y'all exist in the same place or you playing online? this maaay be relevant to my interests

@catoutofbed @SilviaFox which game? owo