31–40 of 59 posts
> just setting up my twttr...again > (account suspension was an internal mistake) Did he really just abbreviate his company name ... and no other words?
Definitely would recommend, even for entertainment value, but definitely for the SV lore and understanding these references.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Hatching-Twitter-Story-Friendship-Bet...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so why does the article report that only 3.8 out of 3.9 million followers were restored? While overall I would say that is pretty much a rounding error, if we look at it very carefully you have to ask: did literally 100,000 people proactively choose to unsubscribe, from an account that obviously remains important, and moreover during a time when it was inactive? Would his tweet have been so 'spammy' that 1 out of 39…
in distributed systems, counts are often incrementally maintained over time. There are many ways to trigger an unfollow (e.g. account deleted or country banned), and all the edge cases must be explicitly accounted for, or error creeps in, which is probably what happened. 3.8M is probably the more accurate count.
>3.8M is probably the more accurate count.
You mean "than 3.9" right? So in an open-ended way, genuinely curious here, would you say the 2.63M he's at now (as I screenshotted for you) an "even more accurate" figure?
just trying to understand the change in figures - I don't have a horse in this race and can certainly accept your reasoning. I don't know much about how these counts work.
Google was banning people's email and their entire digital life because of buying multiple pixel phones. This is an unrelated issue but they took it upon themselves to just use their unlimited power to screw people. It's like your electricity company shutting off your heat because you didn't pay for some stove, if they sold both things.
These companies would so themseves a lot of justice by setting up a this party group that manages hear abuses and is impartial.
Silicone Valley companies wield too much power when it comes to these sorts of things. This is just another example of this, if they don't self regulate there will be laws that regulate them. Google was banning people's email and their entire digital life because of buying multiple pixel phones. This is an unrelated issue but they took it upon themselves to just use their unlimited power to screw people. It's like yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fitting ... into a tweet. I enjoy the constraint and view it as a minor new art form, similar to the constraints of a Haiku. Seeing that '0' when I'm done is generally mildly pleasurable for me.
I almost exclusively follow stand up comedians on Twitter, and the character limit is perfect for a concise one line joke. I will actually avoid any "twitlonger" links or images of text, because that's not what I'm there to see. Likewise, I've unfollowed quite a few people on Instagram when they start regularly posting pictures of text. Maybe I'm just a format purist snob?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a suspension, not a deletion, which implies it's possible to resume the account. It seems logical that the state of the account would be entirely preserved for later restoration.
so why does the article report that only 3.8 out of 3.9 million followers were restored? While overall I would say that is pretty much a rounding error, if we look at it very carefully you have to ask: did literally 100,000 people proactively choose to unsubscribe, from an account that obviously remains important, and moreover during a time when it was inactive? Would his tweet have been so 'spammy' that 1 out of 39…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in distributed systems, counts are often incrementally maintained over time. There are many ways to trigger an unfollow (e.g. account deleted or country banned), and all the edge cases must be explicitly accounted for, or error creeps in, which is probably what happened. 3.8M is probably the more accurate count.
I have no idea why anyone would downvote the current comment. I've edited to be clear I'm being totally open-ended. >3.8M is probably the more accurate count. You mean "than 3.9" right? So in an open-ended way, genuinely curious here, would you say the 2.63M he's at now (as I screenshotted for you) an "even more accurate" figure? just trying to understand the change in figures - I don't have a horse in this race and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fitting ... into a tweet. I enjoy the constraint and view it as a minor new art form, similar to the constraints of a Haiku. Seeing that '0' when I'm done is generally mildly pleasurable for me.
I almost exclusively follow stand up comedians on Twitter, and the character limit is perfect for a concise one line joke. I will actually avoid any "twitlonger" links or images of text, because that's not what I'm there to see. Likewise, I've unfollowed quite a few people on Instagram when they start regularly posting pictures of text. Maybe I'm just a format purist snob?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea why anyone would downvote the current comment. I've edited to be clear I'm being totally open-ended. >3.8M is probably the more accurate count. You mean "than 3.9" right? So in an open-ended way, genuinely curious here, would you say the 2.63M he's at now (as I screenshotted for you) an "even more accurate" figure? just trying to understand the change in figures - I don't have a horse in this race and…
I don't know at all, but a number that high may be fuzzy like with reddit's voting system. At some point to save database queries, they may just approximate the number.
-----------------------------------
EDIT: I didn't change above the line with this edit but - why would anyone downvote this comment too? when all I say is it's an interesting perspective. (There are no comment replies at this time, just a downvote.) Also I reread my comment and I noticed that it was not actually listed as 2.6 - but 2.63 -- so two sig figs.
I actually took screenshots (for myself) with my clock, this is an interesting change:
it's -0.11m change over about 2 hours 21 min. (take 7 seconds). I don't know what part of that is "fuzzing" (like reddit does) what part of that is lack of coherence (from distributed DB), and what part of that is the actual change.
I would think, if anything, it would move up during this time due to the extra attention - maybe HN, CNN and other readers would sub to him after reading this story. at any rate it's certainly a puzzle to me why anyone would downvote this comment. (I don't think it's malicious and there's just one downvote.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I almost exclusively follow stand up comedians on Twitter, and the character limit is perfect for a concise one line joke. I will actually avoid any "twitlonger" links or images of text, because that's not what I'm there to see. Likewise, I've unfollowed quite a few people on Instagram when they start regularly posting pictures of text. Maybe I'm just a format purist snob?
Images of text on Instagram is definitely wrong. Get a blog.