361–370 of 986 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that’s totally unacceptable for live sports which people are able to bet on
I don't bet so I have no clue, but why is that? Are people able to place bets in the middle of the match or something? I would have assumed bets get locked in when the fight starts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that’s totally unacceptable for live sports which people are able to bet on
This is kind of silly because the delay between actual event happening to showing up on OTA TV or cable TV to showing up on satellite TV can already be tens of seconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know. But given how much they spend on engineering, how much time they had and how important this event is ... mediocre performance.
All true, but this part of your GP comment: > a company that fundamentally only does a single thing, which is this … isn’t true. From the couch, watching Suits and watching a live sports match may seem similar but they’re very different technical problems to solve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope to never have a manager who is mentally stack ranking me and my coworkers in terms of perceived dumbness instead of in terms of any positive trait.
I'm not a manager and I don't stack rank people, but I am 100% capable of knowing when one of my co-workers or predecessors is a fucking moron. The trick is to use my massive brain to root cause several significant outages, discover that most of them originate in code written by the same employee, and notice that said employee liked to write things like // @ts-nocheck // obligatory disabling of typescript: static typ…
So again, maybe they're a bad employee but it seems like nothing's done to even try and minimize the risks they present.
I wonder if there will be any long term reputational repercussions for Netflix because of this. Amongst SWEs, Netflix is known for hiring the best people and their streaming service normally seems very solid. Other streaming services have definitely caught up a bit and are much more reliable then in the early days, but my impression still has always been that Netflix is a step above the rest technically. This sure do…
Maybe if we're not counting Youtube as 'streaming', but in my mind no one holds a candle to YT quality in (live)streaming.
Netflix is good only on streaming ready made content, not live streaming, but; 1. Netflix is a 300B company, this isn't a resources issue. 2. This isn't the first time they have done live streaming at this scale either. They already have prior failure experience, you expect the 2nd time to be better, if not perfect. 3. There were plenty of time between first massive live streaming to second. Meaning plenty of time to…
You can't solve your way out of a complex problem that you have created and which wasn't needed in the first place. The entire microservices thing was overly complex with zero benefits I spoke to multiple Netflix senior technicians about this. They said that's the whole shtick.
Live streaming is just much harder than streaming, and it takes a years of work and a huge headcount to get something good.
What do you think were the dynamics of the engineering team working on this? I'd think this isn't too crazy to stress test. If you have 300 million users signed up then you're stress test should be 300 million simultaneous streams in HD for 4 hours. I just don't see how Netflix screws this up. Maybe it was a management incompetence thing? Manager says something like "We only need to support 20 million simultaneous st…
Has there ever been a 300m concurrent live stream? I thought Disney+ had the record at something like 60m.