| 19 Jul 2025 |
 emily | surely you need to at least patch the server URL | 19:57:08 |
 @emma:rory.gay | yes but that's not actually part of the client | 19:57:20 |
| @emma:rory.gay | that's all neatly defined in a single script tag in the <head> of index.html | 19:57:40 |
| emily | putting a ton of engineering effort into a greenfield federated chat protocol … to use with Discord clients is weird to me | 19:57:46 |
| emily | like I get people liking Discord's UX and that clients are a lot of work but… if you're putting that much development effort in… | 19:58:14 |
| @emma:rory.gay | the irony is that we cant even ship their client for it, and their desktop client is just a dummy web app wrapper | 19:58:44 |
| emily | why tie it to an API and client designed by a company inherently hostile to what you're doing that will never be match how your actual protocol works | 19:58:51 |
| emily | and that will skew all the work you put in to the actual protocol | 19:59:27 |
| emily | just very odd imo | 19:59:33 |
| @emma:rory.gay | because its meant to be compatible with spacebarchat - which by itself was immensely popular way back when | 19:59:33 |
| emily | pretty sure I've literally never heard of Spacebar in ~a decade (tragically) of using Discord | 20:00:24 |
| @emma:rory.gay | 
Download clipboard.png | 20:00:44 |
| emily | so not sure the piggybacking is helping too much with market penetration there | 20:00:47 |
| @emma:rory.gay | maybe under its old name, fosscord | 20:01:10 |
| emily | feel like I heard the name once or twice and that's it? | 20:03:22 |
 K900 | Hot take: if you're going to emulate an existing protocol just to get free clients, make it fucking Telegram | 20:04:07 |
| K900 | Telegram's protocol is absolutely abhorrent | 20:04:21 |
