"I think this is mostly silly. Barely anyone uses ActivityPub. If BlueSky only moderately catches on and 100M people start using it, the total number of Activit

"I think this is mostly silly. Barely anyone uses ActivityPub. If BlueSky only moderately catches on and 100M people start using it, the total number of ActivityPub users would be a rounding error." Says everyone everywhere who thinks they made something better! "If BlueSky comes up with a better architecture, ActivityPub clients should rebase. BlueSky should pretend they don't exist, except if they have some nice schemas or solved some problem efficiently, try to maintain compatibility with that unless there's even the slightest reason to deviate." Look, i'm not suggesting whoever does it first gets to dictate it, but literally everyone thinks their thing will be better enough to attract lots of users or be worth it, and most never actually do/are. They do, however, cause lots and lots and lots of toil! Your position is exactly what leads people over this cliff - better architecture does not matter. it doesn't. Technical goodness is not an end unto itself. Its a means, often to reduce cost or increase efficiency, and unfortunately rarely, deliver new features or better experience. Reducing cost or increasing efficiency are great. But architecture is not the product. The product is the product.