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

Twitter was down

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 493 posts

Re: Twitter was down

#481

Post by roflyear »

smcl wrote: post #478
roflyear wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad it worked for you. For every person like you there are a thousand where they were mistreated and it didn't lead to success.

[Raises hand] I spent countless weekends and evenings in my mid-20s to help the company meet a delivery deadlines (earning the company X million pounds each time) or to untangle some production fuckup (saving the company from having to “best price” trades or incur fines). Claims of overtime shushed and dismissed (“come on you already make more than $colleague…”). Promises of equity that were “delivered” in the form o…

We've all heard the story!

"Now is the time you want to work hard ... trust me"

"It isn't in the budget now, but we're just about to close ... "

"If we pull through this, everyone here will be rewarded!"

"Now isn't the time to leave ... trust me"

It's shameless!

Re: Twitter was down

#482

Post by RC_ITR »

hef19898 wrote: post #470
RC_ITR wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a nit, Twitter traded well above $44bn for good portions of 2021. It was arguably even a fair price when he offered it (acquisition always have premiums), the market just turned.

So, shareholders got paid the pre-downturn price after the downturn? At a time big tech went down double 10+%? Sounds like an incredibly good deal to me.

Yeah it was.

But now $44bn is the cost basis for all the current shareholders, so Elon has to make returns against that.

Re: Twitter was down

#483

Post by jononor »

Does anyone know of time-series data with Twitter incidents/up/downtime? Would be interesting to do an analysis of the service level and change point analysis wrt the firing.

Re: Twitter was down

#484

Post by grumple »

mjr00 wrote: post #354
grumple wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely a correlation. But not having layoffs just doesn't mean no outages.

> There's definitely a correlation. Where is the evidence of this?

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

Best source I could find. Currentlydown didn't even register yesterday's outage, and downdetector doesn't share historical data.

Re: Twitter was down

#485

Post by MrOwnPut »

ModernMech wrote: post #475
MrOwnPut wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I think the people creating drama here should take responsibility and act like professionals. No need to pull out terms like gaslighting to justify creating more drama. A 1 hour downtime is nothing.

> A 1 hour downtime is nothing. If it’s nothing, why is Musk on Twitter saying the whole codebase is brittle for no reason, and needs a complete rewrite? Sounds like a pretty big deal to me. As far as the drama comment, you’re free to disengage from this thread at any time. No need to continually interject how against the drama you are. Just leave if you find it distasteful.

A 1 hour down time every infrequently is nothing, but at the same time a codebase can be brittle. Are you saying the two are mutually exclusive?

Brittle code means it's hard to change, and causes issues when changed, but other than that it's stable when running.

And I have every right to point out the drama here. People here do somewhat have the right to create drama, but it is distasteful and unprofessional and I will continue to call it out.

Glad for you to admit there is drama here though :)

Re: Twitter was down

#486

Post by MrOwnPut »

roflyear wrote: post #477
MrOwnPut wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of companies who need this do pay it forward. Shall we source our percentages or just keep throwing them out?

Lol, it's obvious I'm not stating a real number. Relax.

Yeah I know. I was making a point about arbitrary statements and anecdotes. Relax.

Re: Twitter was down

#487

Post by rvz »

numpad0 wrote: post #472
rvz wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just top 3 Mastodon instances(mastodon.social, pawoo.net, mstdn.jp) collectively has > 2mil users, same level as Twitter in 2008. You really think 'pawoo.net' and 'mstdn.jp' are fabulous advertisements for Mastodon of over 2M users on those instances, unless you think CP and loli culture there is a great thing since it is totally illegal in hundreds of countries? Secondly, both pawoo.net and mstdn.jp instances are…

> You really think 'pawoo.net' and 'mstdn.jp' are fabulous advertisements for Mastodon of over 2M users on those instances Yes. My understanding at this point is that, firstly, instances that do not federate with these, and those cheap “CP” accusations, has no relevance in this discussion, because nothing comes out of those. Secondly, it seems completely plausible to me at this time, that a central Mastodon instance…

> My understanding at this point is that, firstly, instances that do not federate with these, and those cheap “CP” accusations, has no relevance in this discussion, because nothing comes out of those.

It is totally relevant since not only you just mentioned both of those instances, but they also have over a million users there which CP and loli culture is pervasive on those instances and hiding the problem under the rug only makes Mastodon a far worse place, given that the majority of those instances is full of that CP content which is completely illegal in lots of countries and is hardly appealing to normal users.

> Secondly, it seems completely plausible to me at this time, that a central Mastodon instance will become the core of a Western European social media landscape...

Right, eventually defeating the whole point of federation with more re-centralization and co-ordinated instance-level banning and you advocating a centralized government controlled social networks being much better. What could possibly go wrong? /s

> Such violent responses that you have expressed against the names of .jp and Pawoo is plausibly an indication of those developments.

What "violent responses"? The basic facts about Mastodon may indeed hurt, but you advertising those two instances that have over a million users using it for loli and illegal CP content doesn't put Mastodon in a good light and makes it completely unsuitable as a 'direct substitute' to Twitter.

Re: Twitter was down

#488

Post by runarberg »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #486
roflyear wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, it's obvious I'm not stating a real number. Relax.

Yeah I know. I was making a point about arbitrary statements and anecdotes. Relax.

As far as I know there is shamefully little research on corporate behavior. Most research I hear about has to do with gender pay gap and only in jurisdictions which mandate it (I wonder why this is).

I think our best estimate of corporate behavior is to look at union contracts, and union demands. Almost universally union contracts prohibit workers from working outside of set number of daily, weekly, and monthly hours. Usually there are some clauses for extraordinary circumstances, but I’ve never worked under a union contract which had less than 11 hours mandatory rest between shifts (even in an emergency) which effectively prohibits all nighters. I’ve seen contracts that go down to 7 hours if absolutely necessary (and every hour infringing on 12 hour rest is payed with 90% penalty) but never 0.

Why do unions demand this? My best guess is that this is a common exploitation tactic by corporations, and thusly a common complaint from union members. Thus we can reasonably assume that many (most?) workers who have worked unreasonably long hours have not seen their just benefits for doing so and felt exploited.

Now it would be nice if corporations kept statistics on this, or if there ware regular surveys by governments or impartial research centers so we could get a more accurate picture, but as far as I know, as it stands, this is our best method, and it is not in favor of this practice.

Re: Twitter was down

#489

Post by hef19898 »

RC_ITR wrote: post #482
hef19898 wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, shareholders got paid the pre-downturn price after the downturn? At a time big tech went down double 10+%? Sounds like an incredibly good deal to me.

Yeah it was. But now $44bn is the cost basis for all the current shareholders, so Elon has to make returns against that.

If pre-acquisition shareholders choose to stick around after that windfall, well, that there problem. And Elon's.
Post reply on HN