Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Giving you more characters

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 493 posts

Re: Giving you more characters

#271

Post by hasmot »

Great Newspapers App for Australian Newspapers

We know there are many newspapers in UK. But all of the newspaper is not collected at all.Thus we have developed Australian Newspapers app. Where you can find all Australian Newspapers at a glance.AUS News is available here that is totally free. That means AU News Apps For Free all time. So you can get it : (AUS News) App from google play store. Now read AUS News full free.

  ⏭ ⏭Features AU Newspaper App :  
  Huge collection of Newspapers (1000+) 
 You can find all states newspapers of AUS 
 Facility of bookmarking  
 Facility of reading newspapers with different categories  
 Price : totally free  
 Size : 2.97 mb (only) 
 Download link :https://goo.gl/mkZyRc 
 
    Note : Please share this app to your friends and who want to read AUS News every day. Please give 5 stars rating (AUS News App) to help us.

Re: Giving you more characters

#272

Post by glenstein »

jsnathan wrote: post #30

I'm not sure what to make of this. I suppose there is nothing inherently ideal about the (arbitrary) 140 character limit on tweets. Why not 180, or 280, etc? Still, my first reaction was, this is .. a bad idea: the 140-character limit is iconic, it's at the core of their value proposition, and Twitter is going to dilute their brand if they abandon it. I think it's not only that people sometimes feel limited by the 14…

I agree with you that the 140 is iconic and it's probably not a good idea to abandon it. What's more, I feel like there was a very simple, elegant solution to this all along. It was to allow long-form text as a type of embedded media, treating it the same as video and pictures.

That way you don't lose the iconic 140 characters thing, and you don't have any problem to solve by making weird compromises where the user names or media URLs don't count toward the 140, blurring the lines of what 140 means and losing the "creativity loves constraints" factor.

Re: Giving you more characters

#273

Post by rhencke »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #221
iaw wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe I'm writing this, but given the current modes of political communication in the US longer tweets may prevent nuclear war...

Indeed. If you recall when Trump announced his transgender ban on the military, he had a ten minute delay between part one and the actual subject of the message. "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow....." During those ten minutes, even folks at the Pentagon were wondering if Trump was about to announce a strike on a for…

> During those ten minutes, even folks at the Pentagon were wondering if Trump was about to announce a strike on a foreign power

Do you have a source you could provide for this?

Re: Giving you more characters

#274

Post by glenstein »

ufo wrote: post #249
mintplant wrote: post #44

Mastodon [0] has a default character limit of 500, which individual instances can turn up or down as they see fit (Mastodon is a federated network). Hundreds of thousands of people use it and the social dynamics work just fine, or even better, with the additional breathing room for expression. To me Twitter's attachment to such a low cap feels like an anachronism. [0] https://joinmastodon.org

Do you need to have an account to lurk around a mastodon instance?

It helps. But now, if you scroll down on the generic signup page that each instance greets you with, there's a "look inside" box with recent messages from users of that instance.

Re: Giving you more characters

#275

Post by [deleted] »

squarecog wrote: post #200
okr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of many reasons, why a limit is somehow hardcoded/assumed throughout the entire system including the history and probably a lot of optimizations around it. You can not think of any? In databases you also have limits, like character limits, like 16k for a varchar or something. Or memcaches with bucket sizes and so on. It is not just changing a number, i can imagine.

(ex-twitter engineer) I left before this project got started, and do not have any insider info on how they did it. Given what I know about the number of places tweet length assumptions were built into, it must have been a large, cross-team effort. It likely required thoughtful problem-solving. Take, for example, search. An early iteration of Twitter search relied on this limit to pack term positions into 8 bits (Sour…

[deleted]

Re: Giving you more characters

#276

Post by Zarel »

Everyone is criticizing this decision, but I think it's useful to point out that I've heard a lot of users say that Japanese Twitter has significantly fewer misunderstandings and toxicity and is a generally friendlier place than English Twitter.

This might be a lot of the reason Twitter is trying this out.

Re: Giving you more characters

#277

Post by ubersync »

gegtik wrote: post #260
OscarCunningham wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of weird that it doesn't. You could so easily change the "sixty-seven" to "twenty-five".

he used 97 words to say "I love you" 32.333 times, you're taking away 42, so he would also have to say "I love you" eighteen and a third times

But then, the poem will be 124 words (by changing "thirty two" to "eighteen"), so we will have to change 125 to 124. Then, he will be able to say "I love you" an exactly 18 times. So now we are 3 words shorter (by removing "and a third"). So it comes 121. With 121 words, he will be able to say "I love you" exactly 17 times. So, there you go. Change "one sixty seven" to "one twenty one", and "thirty two and a third times" to "seventeen times".

Re: Giving you more characters

#278

Post by Xorlev »

akkartik wrote: post #230
squarecog wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(ex-twitter engineer) I left before this project got started, and do not have any insider info on how they did it. Given what I know about the number of places tweet length assumptions were built into, it must have been a large, cross-team effort. It likely required thoughtful problem-solving. Take, for example, search. An early iteration of Twitter search relied on this limit to pack term positions into 8 bits (Sour…

Wow, sounds like Y2K.

At the volume Twitter works at, you take the constraints you can find.

Re: Giving you more characters

#279

Post by glenstein »

tootie wrote: post #269
pg_bot wrote: post #97

I'm convinced there is no one at twitter that understands why they succeeded as a company. Their management team continually makes decisions that are reminiscent of shuffling around deck chairs on the titanic. I get the feeling that they only exist due to inertia which is a death sentence for most tech companies.

No one in silicon valley will say the reason, but it's blindingly obvious. It was dumb luck. Luck plays a part in every success and failure and Twitter was about 98% luck. There was and is no vision or strategy that explains this. No lessons to learn. Pure zeitgeist that is bound to crumble sometime after Trump leaves office.

I think it was a convergence of luck, the solving of a specific problem that was relevant at the time (sms messages), well timed celebrity adoption (Shaq was an early twitter user) and the idiosyncratic constraint of 140 characters which distinguished the platform from alternatives and contributed to a unique feel.

It's large part luck, but the particular features play a role, too.

Re: Giving you more characters

#280

Post by ramshorns »

iagooar wrote: post #62

I like it. Will reduce the amount of 1 out of X tweets from the same person. It will allow tweets to become quite a bit more expressive, without becoming Facebook-like novels. And hey, when Twitter doesn't try new stuff, people complain. When Twitter does, they complain as well. PS: This post would perfectly fit in a next-gen tweet ;)

Your PS is a statement whose existence makes itself false. Kind of like "This page intentionally left blank."
Post reply on HN