3 ms·

> Facebook said it was caused by a bug in the system that has now been fixed. Funny how problems like these are attributed euphemistically to "bugs" that are "

> Facebook said it was caused by a bug in the system that has now been fixed. Funny how problems like these are attributed euphemistically to "bugs" that are "fixed" in reporting. I do not often see journalism incorporating detailed descriptions of computer-related mishaps other than "glitches" [1,2]. It does not help that reporting on these circumstances to journalists may also be mediocre. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/07/21/long-lines-for-southwest-airlines-passengers-at-area-airports/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/07/2... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/07/08/computer-glitches-are-basically-inevitable-but-for-big-companies-they-can-be-big-problems/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/07/08...

bitforger 8y ago
Would it really matter? The root cause would probably sound something like this: "The user's preferences were ignored because the advert system failed to invalidate the cache during the change, causing the user's previously cached settings to be used. This occurred only for a small set of users, who were in a similar geographic location and were assigned to an experimental cohort to test an updated component of the advert system." Would anyone understand this? Would anyone care?
- dr_teh 8y ago
  I feel like turning this into a technical issue is sleight of hand
  - thedevindevops 8y ago
    Ah but you see, it isn't, here's what happened in the ticket system: Feature: Display most profitable ads to users without offending anyone. Bug: User was offended. Resolution: Add user to block list for offending advert. Status: resolved.