3 ms·
wouldn't it be easier to just stick http:// http:// in front of a chunk of data and let the twitter url shortener take care of it for you?
by ZenPsycho 15y ago
wouldn't it be easier to just stick http:// http:// in front of a chunk of data and let the twitter url shortener take care of it for you?
- icebraining 15y agoEasier, yes, but that has the disadvantage of forcing the receiver to do an extra HTTP request for each tweet. I guess it depends on the maximum URL size supported; if they're like tinyURL that supports at least 256KB[1], it's a much better choice, yes. [1]: https://breakingcode.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/having-fun-with-url-shorteners-part-2-parasitic-storage/ https://breakingcode.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/having-fun-wit...
- ZenPsycho 15y agoIt occurred to me that you could even prefix it like so http://decode.it/BATMAN.avi.part1/<chunkofbase64data> http://decode.it/BATMAN.avi.part1/<chunkofbase64data> and have a service there that decodes and passes the data back to the browser as a binary download- even better if you can work out a way to get twitter to shorten data: urls.
- baddox 15y agoBut then you're not really using Twitter (their main micro blogging service) to share the file. You might as well encode your data as a lossless image, upload to Flickr, and paste the link into Twitter.
- ZenPsycho 15y agoSo in order to break one arbitrary set of rules, we should strictly adhere to this other arbitrary set of rules, otherwise what would be the difference between doing that, and just not following any rules at all? .... huh? This kind of reminds me of this xkcd strip about floor tiles http://xkcd.com/245/ http://xkcd.com/245/ In any case, I kind of wonder why nobody hasn't just thought of PSK encoding their DVDs and walking around town blasting them out of a boombox. I'm sure that will make you loads of friends.