4 ms·

This looks interesting. https://atproto.com/docs https://atproto.com/docs

• mike256 4y ago
  I dont think so. It should not be named AT Protocol... :-( +++ ATH
  • yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    Darn it, I initially assumed that this was about AT commands.
    • rbanffy 4y ago
      Same here. I guess we are very old. OTOH, companies like these should hire us Elder Things to check whether they are naming something after something people like.
      • xen2xen1 4y ago
        It's not? Hayes compatible all the way!
        • rbanffy 4y ago
          It was terrible, but it was the best we had.
• mdaniel 4y ago
  You seem to have misspelled "misguided". https://atproto.com/specs/xrpc https://atproto.com/specs/xrpc invents their own RPC, because the 8000 other ones are somehow insufficient for their Web3 ways? Bonus points for https://atproto.com/specs/xrpc#authentication https://atproto.com/specs/xrpc#authentication And that's not even getting into "oh, ok, so my cousin is going to create his own DNS entry, is he?" https://atproto.com/guides/identity#identifiers https://atproto.com/guides/identity#identifiers https://atproto.com/lexicons/atproto-com#comatprotocreatesession https://atproto.com/lexicons/atproto-com#comatprotocreateses... seems to be missing any 2FA parts, spitting in the face of years of "don't get phished" learning