6 ms·
Yeah it looks like something that accidentally works because of their implementation rather than something they actually want to be possible.
by fossuser 7y ago
Yeah it looks like something that accidentally works because of their implementation rather than something they actually want to be possible.
- shawnz 7y agoMaybe it's a "backdoor" added by some lower level devs who don't have access to the official controls for hiding the spam for themselves.
- capableweb 7y agoWould would hope that a big service like Twitter has checks and balances in place so no "lower level dev" can add whatever they feel like to the production service.
- inetknght 7y agoYour hope isn't compatible with "move fast and break things"
- WJW 7y agoWhich is not actually a Twitter policy....
- artsyca 7y agoThe tone of this conversation is wrong on so many levels Lower level can equally mean 'direct access' or 'service level' it doesn't have to be a corporate hierarchy thing
- capableweb 7y agoNow I have worked at any FANG company, or even larger than 200+ employees, but I've never heard "lower level dev" to mean they have "low level access". Is this a common label to give people who have access to production database for example?
- shawnz 7y agoProbably not, I was just speaking informally.
- artsyca 7y agoWe're so quick to climb onto the corporate hierarchy even as we scorn the 'suits' and their corner offices Every dev has low level access at some point be it writing or approving production code where do you think the concept of Easter eggs comes from which these clearly fit the description It seems however we've gone so far up the ass of the corporate machine that we have become synonymous with it I read a funny excerpt the other day in a book -- when Rome was full of slaves everyone started adopting a slave mindset because it was everywhere pretty soon you can't distinguish slave from master and so it is here when we as devs put ourselves into comfortable stereotypes but what do I know I'm just a low level dev
- zachrose 7y agoI mean for all we know this was built in semi-intentionally by a team of engineers who quietly recognized this effect of their implementation.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- alkibiades 7y agoyou’d be surprised. it’s usually just the approval of one other engineer. and sometimes you can even force push
- kortilla 7y agoGoogle just fired a dev who pushed in some pro union messages into a security tool. All it takes is a rubber stamp from another engineer.
- CameronNemo 7y agoThose pro union messages were informing employees of their rights, and part of the dev's responsibilities were informing employees of their rights. Wasn't the message also only shown on relevant pages?
- kortilla 7y agoNo, informing employees about labor was not part of the dev’s responsibilities. This employee was not in the HR department and the tool was not for HR-related messages. It was for security warnings.
- dodobirdlord 7y agoPart of the justification for firing was that they did an emergency push so that they could push without a code review.
- Jon_Lowtek 7y agosee: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21813619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21813619
- cosmicexplorer 7y agoThat's definitely correct^. In addition, I expect that this feature is intentional, as most requests will use well-typed thrift structs or graphql to perform backend requests (I think) and I would be surprised if the mute word filters were ever applied accidentally.
- justinator 7y agoHa. That's like most features in Twitter, or at least: how they started out as ie: "RT"
- behnamoh 7y agoclassic "this is not a bug, it's a feature".