git ssb

%Dwd9MKS1uD+yM1MeiiYLgYrTujtkrWoKHhV9bZzeQn0=.sha256

{
  "previous": "%X9IVJB8ZiTABQAcDPtVvXVlrtZFWjq9kxoV67Nko9Kg=.sha256",
  "author": "@EMovhfIrFk4NihAKnRNhrfRaqIhBv1Wj8pTxJNgvCCY=.ed25519",
  "sequence": 1249,
  "timestamp": 1457050424358,
  "hash": "sha256",
  "content": {
    "type": "post",
    "text": "@dust \"trust\" and \"reputation\" have no formal definition, and everyone \"already knows\" what they mean. sillicon valley has coopted the term \"reputation\" where it's something they calculate from their mass of data. in a human context, \"reputation\" is obviously subjective, although, to some degree an estimation of a collective sense of trust. In an honour-amoungst-theves sense, one community can esteeme someone highly, doesn't mean another community sees it like that. I have been meaning to try and write a glossary of ways people use the term \"trust\" and \"reputation\" because there are too many senses to agree on a definition. That WoT thing was just frustrating, for me, because everyone had a valid view, that was completely different.",
    "root": "%J4ugbCtG1hAczuDmhgLFfYHKRRV1SHn7UubNG9ilhsg=.sha256",
    "branch": "%KYxH1bf+NRHbXmYE2lQZWs3RkXF8QT0IyanyEbilcgE=.sha256",
    "mentions": [
      {
        "link": "@/02iw6SFEPIHl8nMkYSwcCgRWxiG6VP547Wcp1NW8Bo=.ed25519",
        "name": "dust"
      }
    ],
    "channel": "patchwork-dev"
  },
  "signature": "BqSErixp4sBa0xs19eTndK+vEzrtQjE+sNfkGRk3YZ6LzLMVUbeeBHnHobZFMBUaznP1hboxQ7zWkUcrtf4lBA==.sig.ed25519"
}