Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

nytimes.com

311–320 of 414 posts

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't store them, and it certainly doesn't, say, try to make them available in a searchable away to everyone in the world. Back of the envelope calculation: If your messages are 256 char messages, on a 128GB ram server you can fit 500 billion of them in memory; incidentally, that's one day's worth of tweets these days. I recently got a quote for a beefy 256GB ram server from Dell for $6,000. To make things eas…

500M tweets per day, not 500B: http://www.internetlivestats.com/twitter-statistics/ Assuming 100 Bytes per message gives 50GB of messages per day.

Thanks. I wrote 500B, but I did do the calculation with 500M; I used much larger estimates (as is always recommended in back-of-the-envelope calculation) - namely, 256 bytes per tweet - which, in addition to 140 bytes of text[0], leaves e.g. 8 bytes for user id (2 billion uids for every living person on earth), 8 bytes for microsecond timestamp, and 80 more bytes for pointers/caching/stats/whatever. (Those 16 bytes, incidentally, are enough to have a unique identifier for every tweet)

I assume the average tweet is closer to 80 bytes, and taking advantage of that can let you store twice as much tweets in memory.

[0] Does twitter count utf-8 bytes, code points, graphemes, or something else towards the 140-"char" limit? Regardless, the computation would not yield materially different results.

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $14 million is what justifies the $16 billion.

No, the half billion plus user base, consisting almost entirely of non-Facebook users, is what justified that purchase to Facebook.

WhatsApp's revenue that they earned from that user base is what was driving the valuation from the perspective of everyone not in Facebook's camp. Facebook woukdnt have been able to buy WhatsApp if WhatsApp thought they could make more money off that username than Facebook.

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Twitter reported half a billion in revenue last quarter And yet managed to lose 136 million dollars. While revenue is interesting, it just doesn't matter if you can't turn a profit.

How is it even possible for a company like twitter to spend a billion dollar and change in one quarter? That's enough to run a small country complete with golden bathroom for the dictator. Time to go read about their OPEX I suppose. Anyone got a link to a good write-up?

Twitter is notorious for being ridiculously frivolous[1]. They also pay their employees very very high wages[2], which isn't a bad thing, but I assume that doesn't scale well.

1. http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/06/technology/social/twitter-ca...

2. http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Twitter-Staff-Software-Engin...

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $14 million is what justifies the $16 billion.

No, it doesn't. I strongly believe there are many other important factors like user base, growth ratio and active users than define the real value.

Sure, lots of other factors are important, but ultimately factors like user base growth and active users are just showing WhatsApp gaining a larger revenue stream.

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#315

"Moments" tab gives a good indication that Twitter has no idea where to go and is the sum of boring meetings with marketing consultants. Twitter had potential, but it appears stagnate as all they've done is created a new version of an AOL instant messenger chatroom with hashtags and 128char limit. Limiting the API tokens for 3rd party developers was a really foolish move.

The most innovative technology to have come out of chat programs is Slack's feature that let's you EDIT chats in real time, and leave reactions. This is such a crazy innovation to the structure of chat programs, that it blows my mind other real time communication platforms haven't incorporated it. Even Facebook Messenger and GChat feel inadequate now that I'm consciously aware that they don't let me edit my chat mess…

Skype has had that functionality for a very long time, well before Slack was conceived.

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#316
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree, but the scale of what Twitter is doing technically is very different. Network size is not as important as how messages are distributed within it. Whereas most WhatsApp messages are one to one, on Twitter they're almost always one-to-very-many. If 10000 Twitter users with 1000 followers each send a tweet, that's 10000000 messages hitting queues. 10000 WhatsApp users sending a single message each are li…

Perhaps that is the lesson to be learned? That technology with limits... scales? If you want to "do social", do it for small groups. Nobody really has 40 000 friends, so why bother with the use-case that is literally only used by advertising companies?

Because the ad companies with 40k are the one that will pay the bills

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#317

"Moments" tab gives a good indication that Twitter has no idea where to go and is the sum of boring meetings with marketing consultants. Twitter had potential, but it appears stagnate as all they've done is created a new version of an AOL instant messenger chatroom with hashtags and 128char limit. Limiting the API tokens for 3rd party developers was a really foolish move.

If they're really going toward content, I think Moments is a good idea with a questionable name. Something like Super-GoogleNews could eventually evolve, Sprinkle a little recommendation engine over and you got yourself a custom page full of wordstuff.

I agree. Add in the proper personalization and some kind of Twitter-unique algorithm that almost serves as a voting system (perhaps based on favorites, retweets, replies, etc), and you've got yourself a Reddit replacement. Which could be nice, now that Reddit has decided to become a censored safe place and it's core users are leaving.

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't store them, and it certainly doesn't, say, try to make them available in a searchable away to everyone in the world. Back of the envelope calculation: If your messages are 256 char messages, on a 128GB ram server you can fit 500 billion of them in memory; incidentally, that's one day's worth of tweets these days. I recently got a quote for a beefy 256GB ram server from Dell for $6,000. To make things eas…

> you can fit 500 billion of them in memory You will also need space for fulltext indexes, indexes per hashtag (a set which grows constantly and never shrinks, but has a power distribution, meaning that some hot tags will overwhelm any single machine and it constantly changes), the ability to call up any tweet from any point in history (growing by one beefy Dell server per day), the ability to fan out to 1 or 10 or 1…

I do not claim it is trivial.

But .. fulltext index done right, including per hashtag, doubles the storage requirements at most. And the ability to call up any tweet from history does not need to be as instantaneous is recent tweets (It's ok to wait 5 seconds for a tweet from 5 years ago).

> The fanout problem turns sharding into a lumpy problem because again, there is a power law distribution that can overwhelm any single machine.

Not really, in the case of twitter (where you only trace edges, not edges-of-edges and edges-of-edges-of-edges like Facebook and Linkedin do). In the simplified model I described, the web frontends all pull from the backend, but for the hot 10-million account followers -- of which there aren't that many --, you can just push them to the webservers so they don't even need to query)

> Robustness at that scale is more than buying a pair of SSDs and setting up RAID.

I most definitely agree. But it is cheaply doable when everything is so perfectly shardable as it is in Twitter.

> Then there's the fun part that Twitter is so reliable these days that when something else on the internet breaks, we check Twitter for updates.

That's possibly an illusion. Yes, Twitter is mostly reliable - but do you have any latency stats? e.g., would you know if, on a daily bases, 10% of tweets take 60 seconds until they appear on a viewer's refresh? The "hot" accounts would be cached and immediately updated, but the long tail might have minutes delay and almost no one would notice.

> But often, when you inquire, there is a solid non-obvious reason for non-trivial diversions from the simplest thing that could possibly work.

> I always find it useful to give the benefit of the doubt.

I do not assume other engineers are morons. In my experience as a consultant, though, those solid non-obvious reasons for non-trivial diversions are much more often than not "historical, do not apply any more", "we didn't have time or resources to do it the right way", "the guy who did the initial design did it wrong for whatever reason, and now we are stuck with it", "there's a legal reason that's not obvious why we can't do it that way", and a few others.

Twitter had the resources to do it better from very early on, and they didn't (I think it was 2012 or so before Twitter became reliable). For all I know, their system now could be the most efficient beast ever, and run on a ZX81 with 1K Ram with ultimate reliability, way better than I could ever hope to build.

I was just pointing out that the user facing side of twitter, technically speaking, is not very impressive. I've been doing it for a while on various technical forums - and not once did anyone offer a reason for why it's much harder than it would seem -- most of the responses were along the lines of "but mysql/pgsql/oracle can't take the firehose load, I tried!". Which is correct, but irrelevant.

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#319
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't always, but I can think of a few reasons why they would: - they're hiring for different specialties and departments than what's being cut - at least in theory, they're hiring people who would be above-average workers while laying off those below average - they still need to compensate for normal churn, which is probably exacerbated by the layoffs - they can try giving new candidates weaker compensation to…

This is a good list. Two more reasons: - Corporations are inefficient, sometimes the HR department is not even aware layoffs are coming - Corporations are sometimes unethical, they don't care about the unfairness of hiring a new worker rather than trying to re-place a worker about to be laid off

One more reason - new hires can be cheaper.

Or can appear cheaper to bean counters, at least.

Re: Twitter Expected to Begin Layoffs and Stop Headquarters Expansion

#320
post #5

I don't use Twitter and don't have any friends that do. Am I just uncool, or is it super niche now?

I've been a Twitter user since 2006 and mostly just use it to post sarcastic and pretentious remarks for my own enjoyment; the social aspect of it is almost meaningless to me. Many of my friends in tech do have Twitter accounts, of which they make varying degrees of use (though I'm not sure how many of them would regard it as essential - probably not many). Most of my non-tech friends in real life broadly do not have…

Excellent survey! The part i liked most was where you didn't even mention Google Plus :).
Post reply on HN