You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There was discussion in the Discord server about the phrasing "zero tolerance for bad performance". The intended meaning for this was that being slow is bad, and we should work to fight it instead of accepting it.
I got feedback that it sends the unintended message that being fast is supposed to be impressive. I don't think that's a bad thing, as it actually helps sell the idea of a fast chat app, rather than spend energy disenchanting people with the idea that what we are actually mediocre and then that they should care anyway because the alternatives are worse.
Alternative solutions
One suggestion was something like "a chat app that's just not slow". I would personally prefer to avoid making Loki a statement about other apps, instead focusing on the merits of a chat app that's fast without compromise. This also seems to be a point where there is disagreement.
Regardless, I'm open to alternative ideas.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There was discussion in the Discord server about the phrasing "zero tolerance for bad performance". The intended meaning for this was that being slow is bad, and we should work to fight it instead of accepting it.
I got feedback that it sends the unintended message that being fast is supposed to be impressive. I don't think that's a bad thing, as it actually helps sell the idea of a fast chat app, rather than spend energy disenchanting people with the idea that what we are actually mediocre and then that they should care anyway because the alternatives are worse.
Alternative solutions
One suggestion was something like "a chat app that's just not slow". I would personally prefer to avoid making Loki a statement about other apps, instead focusing on the merits of a chat app that's fast without compromise. This also seems to be a point where there is disagreement.
Regardless, I'm open to alternative ideas.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: