jobangles on Nostr: npub1ynlz3…9873s npub1w0h29…ruwua npub1qmlar…ymdus npub185nxz…2luq0 I hope ...
npub1ynlz3qpjg3zsmskuy80hmy6vgv5kht4kugld9mvd36fxuy8kgm9qf9873s (npub1ynl…873s) npub1w0h29g47254sgmjuaza0qj6cmvwd6qs9rffjyt34a4xs37rfu0sskruwua (npub1w0h…uwua) npub1qmlark5zym2u576hfmecfaa2els8eln4rxls76z24l3g7pq48rvq2ymdus (npub1qml…mdus) npub185nxz5z2ex5ukwq3yyu0tun5lmfj52syl39f77c3px750rrm75tqf2luq0 (npub185n…luq0)
I hope you're both not still angry with eachother. I would like to understand the technical details here. If I'm not mistaken, what Daniel is saying is that conversation's persistent client-server connection is more battery efficient than signal's (when not using GCM). It does not seem to me like the connection method itself is affected by the difference in scale between both apps. I.e., could signal not use a similar approach to improve batterylife?
I hope you're both not still angry with eachother. I would like to understand the technical details here. If I'm not mistaken, what Daniel is saying is that conversation's persistent client-server connection is more battery efficient than signal's (when not using GCM). It does not seem to me like the connection method itself is affected by the difference in scale between both apps. I.e., could signal not use a similar approach to improve batterylife?