Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@meduelelateta Yep, a couple of people have actually brought that up! I actually knew the term already, but (wrongly) had it defined in my head as "polyamory without requiring every partner to know about every other partner", but it turns out that it means something quite different :)

@blinry@chaos.social It's a term I've only learnt recently, actually! Until a few months ago, it hadn't even really occurred to me that this wasn't how relationships worked for everybody... and it explains a lot of the accusations of "neglecting relationships" that ND folks often get thrown at them :/

@bram_dingelstad Hmm. Thinking of real-world Jenga, I believe that this is precisely why the blocks are sanded / lightly coated, rather than just being raw untreated wood! So assuming your physics simulation is accurate enough, presumably there is *some* friction setting that makes it less glue-y without becoming a slip-and-slide :)

@bram_dingelstad No friction parameter to reduce?

@JoSuus Nog zo'n mooie: "kwestieus"

@aeva@mastodon.social Ha :D

@justtesting It does indeed seem to correlate strongly to 'autism', though I don't really like the term personally (long story), hence trying to find a more specific term that describes these specific characteristics :)

Is there a (short) name for:
1. Not defining relationships as eg. "boyfriend" vs. "lover" vs. "friend", etc. but rather just treating them all as "wherever it ends up going that we both feel comfortable with"?
2. Not experiencing 'relationship degradation', ie. if I haven't talked to somebody for 5 years and then talk to them again, it'll be exactly where we left off?

(Boosts welcome!)

@aeva@mastodon.social Oh yeah, bonus concern: I do activism and other public things under my own name, which means that I usually can't talk publicly about who my friends or even partners (by some description) are, because it means that anybody closely associated with me also becomes a potential target of harassers...

@aeva@mastodon.social In somewhat limited circles but yeah, unfortunately so. "Wait, I know your name from somewhere... oh, it was _____!" is about a weekly occurrence for me in tech circles - and not always from a perspective of genuine appreciation either :/

Honestly probably the biggest downside is that it makes it really hard to meet and connect with people on a personal level, because there's always that nagging doubt of "are they here for me, or for my reputation?", and I *know* that I'm a role model to some people, which makes me super cautious about what I say publicly and how as well.

So the fediverse with its limited reach is definitely an opportunity for me to try and be myself more! With less concerns about it becoming "a thing this famous person said".

And I'm only well-known *in specific circles*, so this must be infinitely worse for people who are globally famous. The fame can be very useful to get activist stuff done, but it's also made me understand on a visceral level why celebrities almost always date other celebrities...

@admin Honestly that's fine too, though, people are complex! It's hard to summarize who you are... and often things that you do/say are much more informative anyway

@admin I mean, the bio on my website is still "I do stuff on the internet" so, y'know, give it time :p

@admin Gotta make full use of the available bio space! And this is still the very short summarized version, heh.

There, updated my bio. Now it should be less Twitter-flavoured :)

@admin 👋 :)

@ainmosni IMO both GTalk and GMail overtook their respective ecosystems in the same way; by providing a significantly better user experience than any of the other options, and then tying that experience into a service.

For GMail, that was a huge amount of storage space and a much better webmail UI. For GTalk, that was a client that was usable *at all*, really; pretty much every other XMPP was 'mediocre' at best, and that's what attracted a lot of folks to GTalk.

Of course, the GMail webmail interface only worked with the GMail service; and the Google Talk client only worked with the Google Talk XMPP server. So it superficially seemed like e-mail and XMPP, but you couldn't *actually* use it with those ecosystems more broadly.

So I'd say that probably the most important defense against this for the fediverse right now, is to ensure that there are highly usable service-agnostic clients that a corporation like Google couldn't improve on *enough* to become the Obvious Choice.

(Of course, current-day Google is pretty terrible at usability and doesn't have a great rep, so they're realistically not the big threat that they used to be, but the same risk still applies from other tech companies.)