2 ms·

> were genuine technical issues/limitations I can't even imagine what can be a technical limitation to break sorting on something what worked for more than a d

• eurasiantiger 4y ago
  The fun thing is, it’s probably because they stuff everything into a big giant database and that just doesn’t play well with the fact that any user ever accesses a millionth of a millionth of a percent of those database rows.
• zinekeller 4y ago
  > I can't even imagine what can be a technical limitation to break sorting on something what worked for more than a decade. The default sort (which is reverse chronological) is more likely cached than chronological order. It could be that it's not really about if it could be done but assuming this is really a good-faith problem it could be that the chip crunch made optimising performance a priority and removing effectively-uncacheble (or alternatively space-consuming) chronological order did remove some pressure.