141–150 of 305 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, like 50 cents.
?! The sum of powers of 2 up to 20 is 2^21-1, which is ~$20k; so not $100k, but definitely not 50 cents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, only $100k for a 160 character tweet. Edit: mental math botched. I thought I remembered the powers of 2 better than I actually did. 160 characters would be about 10k, and 100k would buy you a whopping 163 characters.
If they make the limit infinite, you'd end up being paid -1/12 of a cent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
(Also, he has fantastic penmanship.)
Other commenters seem to be missing a critical point here: tweets continue to have a 140 character display with some sort of "read more" that you click to see the rest. To me, that actually sounds pretty great. One thing that's nice about Twitter is that it's fairly skimmable. All of those "1/ Some thought", "2/ some thought continued" threads damage that. Combining them into a "My thoughts on... read more" tweet wou…
actually we get the implementation, but it is bad UX practise. it adds friction to the reading experience and will increase the quantity of tweets with truncated text within the first 140 chars. Twitter poorly handles this already with its URL preview cards. from a UX side, it's bad no matter how much spin Twitter will bring.
I was initially really against this, but parent comment brings a compelling argument: people are already using the service to say more than 140chars worth of stuff. The current methods to do it result in a far worse user experience than the tried and true "Read More" button would.
That said, I'm skeptical of it just in terms of product definition. Like Instagram adding portrait/landscape photos, more than 140 characters to a tweet does nothing but obscure what exactly the product is and how you're supposed to use it (even if people circumvent that anyhow).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
?! The sum of powers of 2 up to 20 is 2^21-1, which is ~$20k; so not $100k, but definitely not 50 cents.
Yeah, I botched my mental math, but yours isn't quite right either, because the 141st character is 1 cent, which is 2^0. So the 20th power of two in this context is 2^19, and the sum of the powers of two up to the 19th is 2^20 - 1.
Other commenters seem to be missing a critical point here: tweets continue to have a 140 character display with some sort of "read more" that you click to see the rest. To me, that actually sounds pretty great. One thing that's nice about Twitter is that it's fairly skimmable. All of those "1/ Some thought", "2/ some thought continued" threads damage that. Combining them into a "My thoughts on... read more" tweet wou…
Okay what's differentiating Twitter from fucking Facebook now? Only the facts that there's (currently) no policy against pseudonyms, bots and multiple accounts and that there's no useless crap games like Farmville.
I think that the crucial difference between twitter and facebook is not the length of the posts, but the fact that twitter is broadcast, or "publish-subscribe", while facebook is semi-private through reciprocal permission (by default).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, only $100k for a 160 character tweet. Edit: mental math botched. I thought I remembered the powers of 2 better than I actually did. 160 characters would be about 10k, and 100k would buy you a whopping 163 characters.
If they make the limit infinite, you'd end up being paid -1/12 of a cent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
or a physicist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, only $100k for a 160 character tweet. Edit: mental math botched. I thought I remembered the powers of 2 better than I actually did. 160 characters would be about 10k, and 100k would buy you a whopping 163 characters.
No, like 50 cents.
There's a neat story on that point: http://mathforum.org/sanders/geometry/GP11Fable.html