We Miss You, Charlie Brown

By Christopher Lemmer Webber on Thu 28 June 2018

Morgan was knocking on the bathroom door. She wanted to know why I was crying when I was meant to be showering.

I was crying because my brain had played a cruel trick on me last night. It conjured a dream in which all the characters from the comic strip "Peanuts" represented myself and friends. Charlie Brown, the familiar but awkward everyman of the series, was absent from every scene, and in that way, heavily present.

I knew that Charlie Brown was absent because Charlie Brown had committed suicide.

I knew that Charlie Brown was my friend Matt Despears.

The familiar Peanuts imagery passed by: Linus (who was me), sat at the wall, but with nobody to talk to. Lucy held out the football, but nobody was there to kick it. Snoopy sat at his doghouse with an empty bowl, and nobody was there to greet him. And so on.

Then the characters, in silence, moved on with their lives, and the title scrolled by the screen... "We Miss You, Charlie Brown".

And so, that morning, I found myself in the shower, crying.

Why Peanuts? I don't know. I wouldn't describe myself as an overly energetic fan of the series. I also don't give too much credit for dream imagery as being necessarily important, since I think much tends to be the byproduct of the cleanup processes of the brain. But it hit home hard, probably because the imagery is so very familiar and repetitive, and so the absence of a key component amongst that familiarity stands out strongly. And maybe Charlie Brown just a good fit for Matt: awkward but loveable.

It has now been over six years since Matt has passed, and I find myself thinking of him often, usually when I have the urge to check in with him and remember that he isn't there. Before this recent move I was going through old drives and CDs and cleaning out and wiping out old junk, and found an archive of old chat logs from when I was a teenager. I found myself reliving old conversations, and most of it was utter trash... I felt embarrassed with my past self and nearly deleted the entire archive. But then I went through and read those chat logs with Matt. I can't say they were of any higher quality... my conversations with Matt seemed even more absurd on average than the rest. But I kept the chat logs. I didn't want to lose that history.

I felt compelled to write this up, and I don't entirely know why. I also nearly didn't write this up, because I think maybe this kind of writing can be dangerous. That may sound absurd, but I can speak from my experience of someone who frequently experiences suicidal ideation that the phrase "would anyone really miss me when I'm gone" comes to mind, and maybe this reinforces that.

I do think that society tends to romanticize depression and suicide in some strange ways, particularly this belief that suffering makes art greater. A friend of mine pointed this out to me for the first time in reference to John Toole's "A Confederacy of Dunces", often advertised and sold to others by, "and the author committed suicide before it was ever published!" But it would have been better to have more books by John Toole instead.

So as for "will anyone miss me if I'm gone", I want to answer that without romanticizing it. The answer is just "Yes, but it would be better if you were here."

A group of friends and I got together to play a board game recently. We sat around the table and had a good time. I drew a picture of "Batpope", one of Matt's favorite old jokes, and we left it on an empty spot at the table for Matt. But we would have rathered that Matt was there. His absence was felt. And that's usually how it is... like in the dream, we pass through the scenes of our lives, and we carry on, but there's a missing space, and one can feel the shape. There's no romance to that... just absence and memories.

We miss you, Matt Despears.

On standards divisions and collaboration (or: Why can't the decentralized social web people just get along?)

By Christopher Lemmer Webber on Thu 25 January 2018

A couple of days ago I wrote about ActivityPub becoming a W3C Recommendation. This was one output of the Social Working Group, and the blogpost was about my experiences, and most of my experiences were on my direct work on ActivityPub. But the Social Working Group did more than ActivityPub; it also on the same day published WebSub, a useful piece of technology in its own right which amongst other things also plays a significant historical role in what is even ActivityPub's history (but is not used by ActivityPub itself), and it has also published several documents which are not compatible with ActivityPub at all, and appear to play the same role. This, to outsiders, may appear confusing, but there are reasons which I will go into in this post.

On that note, friend and Social Working Group co-participant Amy Guy just wrote a reasonably and (to my own feelings) highly empathizable frustrated blogpost (go ahead and read it before you finish this blogpost) about the kinds of comments you see with different members of different decentralized social web communities sniping at each other. Yes, reading the comments is always a precarious idea, particularly on tech news sites. But what's especially frustrating is seeing comments that we either:

These comments seem to be being made by people who were not part of the standards process, so as someone who spent three years of their life on it, let me give the perspective of someone who was actually there.

So yes, first of all, it's true that in the end we pushed out two "stacks" that were mostly incompatible. These would more or less be the "restful + linked data" stack, which is ActivityPub and Linked Data Notifications using ActivityStreams as its core (but extensible) vocabulary (which are directly interoperable, and use the same "inbox" property for delivery), and the "Indieweb stack", which is Micropub and Webmention. (And there's also WebSub, which is not really either specifically part of one or the other of those "stacks" but which can be used with either, and is of such historical significance to federation that we wanted it to be standardized.) Amy Guy did a good job of mapping the landscape in her Social Web Protocols document.

Gosh, two stacks! It does kind of look confusing, if you weren't in the group, to see how this could have happened. Going through meeting logs is boring (though the meeting logs are up there if you feel like it) so here's what happened, as I remember it.

First of all, we didn't just start out with two stacks, we started out with three. At the beginning we had the linked data folks, the RESTful "just speak plain JSON" development type folks, and the Indieweb folks. Nobody really saw eye to eye at first, but eventually we managed to reach some convergence (though not as much as I would have liked). In fact we managed to merge two approaches entirely: ActivityPub is a RESTful API that can be read and interpreted as just JSON, but thanks to JSON-LD you have the power of linked data for extensions or maybe because you really like doing fancy RDF the-web-is-a-graph things. And ActivityPub uses the very same inbox of Linked Data Notifications, and is directly interoperable. Things did not start out as directly interoperable, but Sarven Capadisli and Amy Guy (who was not yet a co-author of ActivityPub) were willing to sit down and discuss and work out the details, and eventually we got there.

Merging the RESTful + Linked Data stuff with the Indieweb stuff was a bit more of a challenge, but for a while it looked like even that might completely happen. For those that don't know, Linked Data type people and Indieweb type people have, for whatever reason, historically been at each others' throats despite (or perhaps because of) the enormous similarity between the kind of work that they're doing (the main disagreements being "should we treat everything like a graph" and "are namespaces a good idea" and also, let's be honest, just historical grudges). But Amy Guy long made the case in the group that actually the divisions between the groups were very shallow and that with just a few tweaks we could actually bridge the gap (this was the real origin of the Social Web Protocols document, which though it eventually became a document of the different things we produced, was originally an analysis of how they weren't so different at all). At the face to face summit in Paris (which I did not attend, but ActivityPub co-editor Jessica Tallon did) there was apparently an energetic meeting over a meal where I'm told that Jessica Tallon and Aaron Parecki (editor of Micropub and Webmention) hit some kind of epiphany and realized yes, by god, we can actually merge these approaches together. Attending remotely, I wasn't there for the meal, but when everyone returned it was apparent that something had changed: the conversation had shifted towards reconciling differences. Between the Paris face to face meeting and the next one, energy was high and discussions active on how to bring things together. Aaron even began to consider that maybe Micropub (and/or? I forget if it was just one) Webmention could support ActivityStreams, since ActivityStreams already had an extension mechanism worked out. At the next face to face meeting, things started out optimistic as well... and then suddenly, within the span of minutes, the whole idea of merging the specs fell apart. In fact it happened so quickly that I'm not even entirely sure what did it, but I think it was over two things: one, Micropub handled an update of fields where you could add or remove a specific element from a list (without giving the entire changed list as a replacement value) and it wasn't obvious how it could be done with ActivityPub, and two, something like "well we already have a whole vocabulary in Microformats anyway, we might as well stick with it." (I could have the details wrong here a bit... again, it happened very fast, and I remember in the next break trying to figure out whether or not things did just fall apart or not.)

With the the dream of Linked Data and Indieweb stuff being reconciled given up on, we decided that at least we could move forward in parallel without clobbering, and in fact while actively supporting, each other. I think, at this point, this was actually the best decision possible, and in a sense it was even very fruitful. At this point, not trying to reconcile and compromise on a single spec, the authors and editors of the differing specifications still spent much time collaborating as the specifications moved forward. Aaron and other Indieweb folks provided plenty of useful feedback for ActivityPub and the ActivityPub folks provided plenty of useful feedback for the Indieweb folks, and I'd say all our specifications were improved greatly by this "friendly treaty" of sorts. If we could not unify, we could at least cooperate, and we did.

I'd even say that we came to a good amount of mutual understanding and respect between these groups within the Social Web Working Group. People approached these decentralization challenges with different building blocks, assumptions, principles, and goals... hence at some point they've encountered approaches that didn't quite jive with their "world view" on how to do it right (TM). And that's okay! Even there, we have plenty of space for cooperation and can learn from each other.

This is also true with the continuation of the Social Web Working Group, which is the SocialCG, where the two co-chairs are myself and Aaron Parecki, who are both editors of specifications of the conflicting "stacks". Within the Social Web Community Group we have a philosophy that our scope is to work on collaboration on social web protocols. If you use a different protocol than another person, you probably can still collaborate a lot, because there's a lot of overlap between the problem domains between social web protocols. Outside the SocialWG and SocialCG it still seems to be a different story, and sadly linked data people and Indieweb people seem to still show up on each others' threads to go after each other. I consider that a disappointment... I wish the external world would reflect the kind of sense of mutual understanding we got in the SocialWG and SocialCG.

Speaking of best attempts at bringing unity, my main goal at participating in the SocialWG, and my entire purpose of showing up in the first place, was always to bring unity. The first task I performed over the course of the first few months at the Social Working Group was to try to bring all of the existing distributed social networks to participate in the SocialWG calls. Even at that time, I was worried about the situation with a "fractured federation"... MediaGoblin was about to implement its own federation code, and I was unhappy that we had a bunch of libre distributed social network projects but none of them could talk to each other, and no matter what we chose we would just end up contributing to the problem. I was called out as naive (which I suppose, in retrospect, was accurate) for a belief that if we could just get everyone around the table we could reconcile our differences, agree on a standard that everyone could share in, and maybe we'd start singing Kumbaya or something. And yes, I was naive, but I did reach out to everyone I could think of (if I missed you somehow, I'm sorry): Diaspora, GNU Social, (well, they were already there), Hubzilla, Friendica, Owncloud (later Nextcloud)... etc etc (Mastodon and some others didn't even exist at this point, though we would connect later)... I figured this was our one chance to finally get everyone on board and collaborate. We did have Diaspora and Owncloud participants for a time (and Nextcloud even has begun implementing ActivityPub), and plenty of groups said they'd like to participate, but the main barrier was that the standards process took a lot of time (true story), which not everyone was able to allocate. But we did our best to incorporate and respond to feedback whever we got it. We did detailed analysis on what the major social networks were providing and what we needed to cover as a result. What I'm trying to say is: ActivityPub was my best attempt to bring unity to this space. It grew out of direct experiences from developing previous standards between OStatus, the Pump API, and over a decade of developing social network protocols and software, including by people who pioneered much of the work in that territory. We tried through long and open comment periods to reconcile the needs of various groups and potential users. Maybe we didn't always succeed... but we did try, and always gave it our best. Maybe ActivityPub will succeed in that role or maybe it won't... I'm hopeful, but time is the true test.

Speaking of attempting to bring unity to the different decentralized social network projects, probably the main thing that disappoints me is the amount of strife we have between these different projects. For example, there are various threads pitting Mastodon vs GNU Social. In fact, Mastodon's lead developer and GNU Social's lead developer get along just fine... it's various members of the communities of each that tend to (sounds familiar?) be hostile.

Here's something interesting: decentralized social web initiatives haven't yet faced an all-out attack from what would be presumably be their natural enemies in the centralized social web: Facebook, Twitter, et all. I mean, there have been some aggressions, in the senses that bridging projects that let users mirror their timelines get shut down as terms of service violations and some comparatively minor things, but I don't know of (as of yet) an outright attack. But maybe they don't have to: participants in the decentralized social web is so good at fighting each other that apparently we do that work for them.

But it doesn't have to be that way. You might be able to come to consensus on a good way forward. And if you can't come to consensus, you can at least have friendly and cooperative communication.

And if somehow, you can't do any of that, you just not openly attack each other. We've got enough hard work to fight to make the federated social web work without fighting ourselves. Thanks.

Update: A previous version of this article said "I even saw someone tried to write a federation history and characterize it as war", but it's been pointed out that I'm being unfair here, since the very article I'm pointing to itself refutes the idea of this being war. Fair point, and I've removed that bit.

ActivityPub is a W3C Recommendation

By Christopher Lemmer Webber on Tue 23 January 2018

Having spent the majority of the last three years of my life on it, I'm happy to announce that ActivityPub is now a W3C Recommendation. Whew! At last! Horray! Finally! I've written some more words on this over on the FSF's blog so maybe read that.

As for things I didn't put there, that fit more on a personal blog? I guess that's where I speak about my personal life experience and feelings about it and I would say they're a mix of elation (for making it), relief (also for making it, because it wasn't always clear that we would), and burnout (I had no idea this process was going to suck up so much of my life).

I didn't expect this to take over my life so thoroughly. I did say this bit on the FSF blogpost but when Jessica Tallon and I got involved in the Social Working Group we figured we were just showing up for an hour a week to make sure things were on track. I did think the goal of the Social Working Group was the right one: we had a lot of libre social networks but they were largely fractured and failed at interoperability... surely we could do better if we got everyone in a room together! (Getting everyone in the room wasn't easy and didn't always happen, though I sure as heck tried, particularly early on.) But I figured the other people in the room would be the experts, the responsible ones, and we'd just be tagging along to make sure our needs were met. Well, the next thing you know we're co-editors of ActivityPub, and that time grew from an hour a week to filling most of my week to sometimes urgent, grueling deadlines (granted, I made most of them a lot more complicated than I needed to be by doing example implementations in obscure languages, etc etc).

I'm feeling great about things now, but that wasn't always the case through this. I've come to learn how hard standards work is, and I've been doing other specification work recently too (more on that in a coming blogpost), but I'll say that for whatever reason (and I can think of quite a few, but it's not worth going into here), ActivityPub has been far harder than anything else I've worked on in the standards space. (Maybe that's just because it's the first standard I've gotten to completion though.)

In fact, in early-to-middle 2017 I was in quite a bit of despair, because it seemed clear that ActivityPub was going to not make it in time as an official recommended standard. The Social Working Group's charter was going to run out at mid-2017, and it had already been extended once... apparently getting a second extension was nearly unheard of. I resigned myself to the idea that ActivityPub would be published as a note, but that there was no way that we would be able to make it to getting the shiny foil stamp of being an actual recommended standard. Instead, I shifted my effort to making sure that my ActivityPub implementation work would support enough of ActivityStreams (which is what ActivityPub uses as its vocabulary) to make sure that at least that would make it as a standard with all the components we required, since we at least needed to be able to refer to that vocabulary.

But Mastodon saved ActivityPub. I'll admit that at first I was skeptical about all the hype I was hearing about Mastodon... but Amy Guy (co-author of ActivityPub, and whose PHD thesis, "Presentation of Self on a Decentralised Web", is worth a read at the memorable domain of convinced me that I really ought to check out what was going on in Mastodon land. And I found I really did like what was happening there... and connected to a community that felt like what I had missed from the heyday of StatusNet/, while having a bit of its own flavor of culture, one that I really felt at home in. It turned out this was good timing... Mastodon was having trouble expanding the privacy needs of its users on OStatus, and it turns out private addressing was exactly one of the reasons that ActivityPub was developed. (I'm not claiming credit for this, I'm just talking from my perspective... the Mastodon ActivityPub implementation issue can give you a better sense of where credit is due, and here I didn't really do much.) This interest came right at the right time... it began to also drum up interest from many other participants too... and it pretty much directly lead to another extension to the Social Working Group, giving us until the end of 2017 to wrap up the work on standardizing ActivityPub. Whew!

But Mastodon is not alone. Today there are a growing number of implementers of ActivityPub. I'd encourage you, if you haven't, to watch this video of PeerTube and Mastodon federating over ActivityPub. Pretty cool stuff! ActivityPub has been a massive group effort, and I'm relieved to see that all that hard work has paid off, for all of us.

Meanwhile, there's a lot to do still ahead. MediaGoblin, ironically, has fallen behind on its own federation support in the interest of advancing federation standards (we have some federation code, but it's for the old pre-ActivityPub Pump API, and it's bitrotted quite a bit) and I need to figure out what the next steps are and discuss with the community (expect more on that in the next few months, and sure to be discussed at my talk at Libreplanet 2018). And ActivityPub may be "done" in the sense that "it made it through the standards process", but some of the most interesting work is still ahead. The Social Web Community Group, of which I am co-chair, meets bi-weekly to talk and collaborate on the interesting problems that implementers of libre networks are encountering. (It's open to everyone, maybe you should join?)

On that note, in a recent Social Web Community Group meeting, Evan Prodromou was showing off some of his latest ActivityPub projects ( and I'm paraphrasing here, but he said something interesting, which has stuck with me: "We did all that standardizing work, and that's great, but now we get to the fun part... now we get to build things."

I agree. I look forward to what the next few years of fun ActivityPub development bring. Onwards!

DRM will unravel the Web

By Christopher Lemmer Webber on Mon 18 September 2017

I'm a web standards author and I participate in the W3C. I am co-editor of the ActivityPub protocol, participate in a few other community groups and working groups, and I consider it an honor to have been able to participate in the W3C process. What I am going to write here though represents me and my feelings alone. In a sense though, that makes this even more painful. This is a blogpost I don't have time to write, but here I am writing it; I am emotionally forced to push forward on this topic. The W3C has allowed DRM to move forward on the web through the EME specification (which is, to paraphrase Danny O'Brien from the EFF, a "DRM shaped hole where nothing else but DRM fits"). This threatens to unravel the web as we know it. How could this happen? How did we get here?

Like many of my generation, I grew up on the web, both as a citizen of this world and as a developer. "Web development", in one way or another, has principally been my work for my adult life, and how I have learned to be a programmer. The web is an enormous, astounding effort of many, many participants. Of course, Tim Berners-Lee is credited for much of it, and deserves much of this credit. I've had the pleasure of meeting Tim on a couple of occasions; when you meet Tim it's clear how deeply he cares about the web. Tim speaks quickly, as though he can't wait to get out the ideas that are so important to him, to try to help you understand how wonderful and exciting this system it is that we can build together. Then, as soon as he's done talking, he returns to his computer and gets to hacking on whatever software he's building to advance the web. You don't see this dedication to "keep your hands dirty" in the gears of the system very often, and it's a trait I admire. So it's very hard to reconcile that vision of Tim with someone who would intentionally unravel their own work... yet by allowing the W3C to approve DRM/EME, I believe that's what has happened.

I had an opportunity to tell Tim what I think about DRM and EME on the web, and unfortunately I blew it. At TPAC (W3C's big conference/gathering of the standards minds) last year, there was a protest against DRM outside. I was too busy to take part, but I did talk to a friend who is close to Tim and was frustrated about the protests happening outside. After I expressed that I sympathized with the protestors (and that I had even indeed protested myself in Boston), I explained my position to my friend. Apparently I was convincing enough where they encouraged me to talk to Tim and offer my perspective; they offered to flag them down for a chat. In fact Tim and I did speak over lunch, but -- although we had met in person before -- it was my first time talking to Tim one-on-one, and I was embarassed for that first interaction would me to be talking about DRM and what I was afraid was a sore subject for him. Instead we had a very pleasant conversation about the work I was doing on ActivityPub and some related friends' work on other standards (such as Linked Data Notifications, etc). It was a good conversation, but when it was over I had an enormous feeling of regret that has been on the back of my mind since.

Here then, is what I wish I had said.

Tim, I have read your article on why the W3C is supporting EME, and that I know you have thought about it a great deal. I think you believe what you are doing what is right for the web, but I believe you are making an enormous miscalculation. You have fought long and hard to build the web into the system it is... unfortunately, I think DRM threatens to undo all that work so thoroughly that allowing the W3C to effectively green-light DRM for the web will be, looking back on your life, your greatest regret.

You and I both know the dangers of DRM: it creates content that is illegal to operate on using any of the tooling you or I will ever be able to write. The power of DRM is not in its technology but in the surrounding laws; in the United States through the DMCA it is a criminal offense to inspect how DRM systems work or to talk about these vulnerabilities. DRM is also something that clearly cannot itself be implemented as a standard; it relies on proprietary secrecy in order to be able to function. Instead, EME defines a DRM-shaped hole, but we all know what goes into that hole... unfortunately, there's no way for you or I to build an open and interoperable system that can fit in that EME hole, because DRM is antithetical to an interoperable, open web.

I think, from reading your article, that you believe that DRM will be safely contained to just "premium movies", and so on. Perhaps if this were true, DRM would still be serious but not as enormous of a threat as I believe it is. In fact, we already know that DRM is being used by companies like John Deere to say that you don't even own your own tractor, car, etc. If DRM can apply to tractors, surely it will apply to more than just movies.

Indeed, there's good reason to believe that some companies will want to apply DRM to every layer of the web. Since the web has become a full-on "application delivery system", of course the same companies that apply DRM to software will want to apply DRM to their web software. The web has traditionally been a book which encourages being opened; I learned much of how to program on the web through that venerable "view source" right-click menu item of web browsers. However I fully expect with EME that we will see application authors begin to lock down HTML, CSS, Javascript, and every other bit of their web applications down with DRM. (I suppose in a sense this is already happening with javascript obfuscation and etc, but the web itself was at least a system of open standards where anyone could build an implementation and anyone could copy around files... with EME, this is no longer the case.) Look at the prevelance of DRM in proprietary applications elsewhere... once the option of a W3C-endorsed DRM-route exists, do you think these same application developers will not reach for it? But I think if you develop the web with the vision of it being humanity's greatest and most empowering knowledge system, you must be against this, because if enough of the web moves over to this model the assumptions and properties of the web as we've known it, as an open graph to free the world, cannot be upheld. I also know the true direction you'd like the web to go, one of linked data systems (of which ActivityPub is somewhat quietly one). Do you think such a world will be possible to build with DRM? I for one do not see how it is possible, but I'm afraid that's the path down which we are headed.

I'm sure you've thought of these things too, so what could be your reason for deciding to go ahead with supporting DRM anyway? My suspicion is it's two things contributing to this:

  1. Fear that the big players will pick up their ball and leave. I suspect there's fear of another WHATWG, that the big players will simply pick up their ball and leave.
  2. Most especially, and related to the above, I suspect the funding and membership structure of the W3C is having a large impact on this. Funding structures tend to have a large impact on decision making, as a kind of Conway's Law effect. W3C is reliant on its "thin gruel" of funding from member organizations (which means that large players tend to have a larger say in how the web is built today).

I suspect this is most of all what's driving the support for DRM within the W3C. However, I know a few W3C staff members who are clearly not excited about DRM, and two who have quit the organization over it, so it's not that EME is internally a technology that brings excitement to the organziation.

I suppose at this point, this is where I diverge with the things I could have said in the past and did not say as an appeal to not allow the W3C to endorse EME. Unfortunately, today EME made it to Recommendation. At the very least, I think the W3C could have gone forward with the Contributor Covenant proposed by the EFF, but did not. This is an enormous disappointment.

What do we do now? I think the best we can do at this point, as individual developers and users, is speak out against DRM and refuse to participate in it.

And Tim, if you're listening, perhaps there's no chance now to stop EME from becoming a Recommendation. But your voice can still carry weight. I encourage you to join in speaking out against the threat DRM brings to unravel the web.

Perhaps if we speak loud enough, and push hard enough, we can still save the web we love. But today is a sad say, and from here I'm afraid it is going to be an uphill battle.

EDIT: If you haven't yet read Cory Doctorow / the EFF's open letter to the W3C, you should.

An Icon I Need Tomorrow

By Christopher Lemmer Webber on Wed 09 August 2017

So this post is, like the story below, kind of a dumb distraction while I should be doing (or even blogging) more important things, but maybe it's entertaining? I may have borrowed a joke from The Thrilling Adventure Hour. Anyway I don't really know what's the point in posting this aside from demonstrating that I am down to narratively improvise, any time, any place (given the appropriate story cues at least). This starts off with a conversation with my friend Sumana on IRC.

<sumanah> hi paroneayea -- hope you are doing well
<sumanah> paroneayea: you may find this amusing -- I ran across this Noun
	  Project "collection" and distracted Jason for a few minutes as we
	  tried to suss out the theme

Some guy really needs this icons

<paroneayea> sumanah: hi!
<paroneayea> sumanah: wow
<sumanah> paroneayea: YES
<sumanah> what is happening tomorrow?
<sumanah> the world must know
<paroneayea> sumanah: I can only imagine a sexy murder cover-up with an office
<sumanah> paroneayea: the insect? the egg?
<sumanah> I want a grand unified theory here
<sumanah> maybe it's like Upstream Color
<paroneayea> Two coworkers, who are secretly lovers, meet and exchange
	     "documents".  (It is a plan, a plan for murder.)
<paroneayea> An elderly relative dies.  Their walker is found alone.
<paroneayea> "The act is done", he whispered, passing by her desk.
<paroneayea> Drive to dump the body. The body is dumped.
<paroneayea> Sexy "ha ha it's over" scene.
<paroneayea> "Can we keep our relationship a secret?"
<paroneayea> Beware, the watercooler talk!
<paroneayea> Three construction workers return to their job and discuss, why
	     did our construction equipment move
* cdonnelly is on the edge of her seat
<paroneayea> [Combining two:] With any luck, the scheme won't break.
<paroneayea> Back, meeting at the lovers' home, dinner is cooking on the stove
	     as the couple talks about their life together.
<paroneayea> Suddenly, a call from the royal guard; "Madam, did you know that
	     your Relative(TM)/Former Lover has died????"
<paroneayea> The woman, mid-lipstick application, pauses.
<paroneayea> She drops the egg, which she was about to crack into the pot.  It
	     breaks, symbolically revealing the break in their plan.
<paroneayea> She accidentally brushes against the pound key.  "Madam are you
	     there?  Madam?"
<paroneayea> "Yes sorry, I'm writing down the address.  Yes, I'll be there in
	     half an hour."
<paroneayea> The phone is hung up, she is afraid.  "Calm down, let's finish
	     our dinner first."  They eat.
<paroneayea> Then they get ready to leave.  She loads her lipstick, which also
	     happened to be a bullet, into her gun.
<paroneayea> (gosh this is getting hard)
* sumanah was wondering whether paroneayea was going to notice that the icon
  looks like a lipstick but is labelled as a bullet
<paroneayea> (I already noticed, I tried to do "her lipstick, which is also a
	     bullet" but got lazy then)
* sumanah wonders: a safe deposit box? a self-storage locker?
<paroneayea> He locks the household, and on the way out, makes sure that the
	     key to the safe is still there.
<paroneayea> Now they are back at the construction site.
<paroneayea> The police officer is taking down the record.  Uhuh, yes.  Uhuh,
	     that sounds about right.
<paroneayea> As the record goes on, their story fills the page but also begins
	     to unravel.
* cdonnelly gasps
<paroneayea> The man nervously thumbs through his keys, and then drops them.
	     The officer says, "Hold on, you dropped your keys sir, let me
	     pick those up for you..." when he picks them up, he sees one key
	     in particular... encrusted in blood.
<paroneayea> "Wait a minute... 5608... this is.. exactly the key to the safe
	     of the man who died recently!"  "That can't be it, hold on a
	     minute..." "I'm calling this in.. sir and madam you're under
<paroneayea> The woman pulls the gun out of her makeup bag.  "Don't make me
	     shoot!  I've loaded this with lipstick and I'm dangerous!"
<paroneayea> * (But BAM BAM, it went off!  A bullet case / lipstick container,
	     labeled Checkov's Cosmetics, falls ominously to the floor.)
<paroneayea> They run!  Into the sewers.  A cockroach scatters out of the way.
<paroneayea> Squeak!  A Rat darts right out of the way, just in time.  "I
	     can't take any more of this.  I won't soil my suit running into
	     this sewer any more!"  "Damnit Jim, if you run out you'll give us
	     all away!"  "I don't care Janice!"  (I guess they have names
* cdonnelly giggles
* sumanah suspects a particular thing is going to happen next
* jasonaowen too
<paroneayea> "I won't let you do this!  I've worked too hard for this damnit!"
	     A gun is pulled!   A shot is fired!  The man falls to the floor,
	     gasping for breath!  "If I'm going down, you're going down with
	     me!"  The woman cries out in pain, and falls to the floor dying
	     as well... but what could have possibly killed her?
<paroneayea> The scene cuts to outside.  The police have pulled the bodies out
	     of the sewer.  "Gosh, this whole thing got complicated really
	     fast.  It sure did end quickly though.  What could have possibly
	     cut this whole series of narrative devices down all at once?"
	     "Take a look at this Harry."  What's that sticking out of her
	     chest?  Oh of course... the murder weapon..." <cotd>
<paroneayea> The guard seals the razor, which had cut it all down at once,
	     into a plastic bag.  "Occam's Razor company... it always seems to
	     bring a quick end to stories like these..."
<paroneayea> FIN
* sumanah applauds
* cdonnelly applauds
<paroneayea> brought to you by I have played way too many fucking RPGs
<jasonaowen> paroneayea:
<paroneayea> If nobody minds I'm going to post this on my blog or something,
	     might as well get a blogpost out of that distraction ;)
<jasonaowen> paroneayea: please do :)
<cdonnelly> paroneayea: +1 to blog post
<sumanah> paroneayea: I was like "I think today I have materially delayed the
	  development of ActivityPub" so I would encourage you to post it
<paroneayea> sumanah: haha :)
* kfogel reads backscroll, vows never to leave desk again