4 ms·

Well someone just asked about it in the live spaces[1] Elon is hosting and he said that should not be there. An engineer said afterwards it is just for metrics

Well someone just asked about it in the live spaces[1] Elon is hosting and he said that should not be there. An engineer said afterwards it is just for metrics but then Elon chimed in again and said "we should get rid of it, it should be gone." [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1641880448061120513?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1641880448061120513?s=20

JustSomeNobody 4y ago
Doesn't necessarily mean he didn't want it there in the first place. Why else would it be there?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshCole 4y ago
  There are millions of lines of code existent. There are thousands added. Your prior for it being Elon's addition should be something like 10,000/1,000,000 or roughly 1/100. The prior that it wasn't Elon's change is going to be something like 99/100. When you add the additional information that Elon wants the code removed, but existing Twitter engineers think it appropriate to keep this actually increases the probability of it being added by the existing Twitter engineers and decreases the probability it was added due to Elon. Obviously, these are rough numbers, but hopefully seeing any numbers at all helps you to get an intuition for the math.
  - jsnell 4y ago
    Why is lines of code the appropriate input here? Here's a different computation that is at least as plausible: There are hundreds of millions of users. Let's say 300M. Only a single one is special-cased in this code: the narcisistic CEO who reportedly went ballistic when his engagement metrics went down. The prior that it's a change done in response to his demands is 299999999/300000000. (But of course it was added by existing Twitter engineers. The odds of Musk being able to actually commit code to their repository are zero. Even if he had the permissions, the man simply does not have the technical acumen to make even a trivial change.)
    - v0idzer0 4y ago
      This is a weird nitpick that doesn’t attack the argument at all. It’s a dense codebase but whatever measure you personally prefer
      - jsnell 4y ago
        JoshCole is doing a computation to arrive at the conclusion that there's a <1% chance that this code was added after Musk bought Twitter. I'm using the same methodology with at least equally plausible inputs to arrive at there being a >>99% chance of it. How is that a nitpick? They're diametrically opposite results.
        JoshCole 4y ago
        I'm JoshCole and I didn't find your reply to be a nitpick; you are right that the probability ought to be higher than 1%. My calculation was simplistic and I felt it was prudent to arrive at low probability, because I think probability of wanting something given claim of wanting it removed should probably not be anywhere near close to certain. My estimate isn't 1% though. It was just a short thing to share that gave an intuition for why it might be reasonable to assume he didn't know or want it. In my opinion if you really care about this topic the right thing to do is ask someone at Twitter when the change was made. Getting more information would make us converge on the true estimate faster than arguing the odds IMO. Feel free to update me with the results if you do end up doing that so I can adjust my beliefs accordingly. I'm not going to try to gain this information, because I don't think the question matters much.
    - JoshCole 4y ago
      I think you are right, my estimate is much much too low. I'll explain my mistake and why I made it. I think I thought to use the estimate I did because Elon claimed he didn't know. The prior probability of not knowing something in a code base with millions of lines is very high, but contingent on his involvement in the change the prior that he is aware of it is much higher. So I started the estimate attempt with the probability that I thought better predicted the production of evidence claiming he didn't know. Your point does raise my estimate substantially, but I think it probably raises it less than you would expect. I don't agree with your 1/300M prior, because I'm aware that hot users get special treatment. I've seen Elon's account thrown around in interview-style questions about hot users before and used as an example of a hot account that needs special treatment. This is something I've witnessed, but it wasn't contingent on Twitter being acquired and it happened prior to Twitter being acquired. I also don't particularly assign high odds to wanting it, based on the evidence that he claimed to not want it implicitly by wanting it removed. I don't think it seems appropriate to get to near certain probability the he wanted it with the evidence being that he stated that he didn't want it. In my view there isn't a compelling reason for him to lie about this. He owns Twitter, so if he wanted them to have his account monitored that would be a reasonable thing well within his authority. If he wanted it, he doesn't need to pretend to not want it in order to appease someone. It does seem to me that the odds that the change was added in response to someone thinking he wanted it is much higher than 1%.
- v0idzer0 4y ago
  The same reason there are ones for other people? When they make changes, they want to see how it affects the visibility of their most popular accounts
- human 4y ago
  If I were Elon, first thing I would have done is ctrl+f “elon”…
XorNot 4y ago
Of course he did because it makes him look bad and he's desperate for praise and attention. What he wanted was everything that feature provides, without it ever being shown that it's there. But since he refuses to hire PR people and almost certainly came up with this idea in the last few days, no one was paid to hide its existence. The next story out of Twitter will be the remaining engineers being threatened because Musk can't see his tweet statistics any more.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Elon does seek attention, but he seems to enjoy conflict far more than praise!
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  This is pure speculation.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

Doesn't necessarily mean he didn't want it there in the first place. Why else would it be there?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JoshCole 4y ago
There are millions of lines of code existent. There are thousands added. Your prior for it being Elon's addition should be something like 10,000/1,000,000 or roughly 1/100. The prior that it wasn't Elon's change is going to be something like 99/100. When you add the additional information that Elon wants the code removed, but existing Twitter engineers think it appropriate to keep this actually increases the probability of it being added by the existing Twitter engineers and decreases the probability it was added due to Elon. Obviously, these are rough numbers, but hopefully seeing any numbers at all helps you to get an intuition for the math.
- jsnell 4y ago
  Why is lines of code the appropriate input here? Here's a different computation that is at least as plausible: There are hundreds of millions of users. Let's say 300M. Only a single one is special-cased in this code: the narcisistic CEO who reportedly went ballistic when his engagement metrics went down. The prior that it's a change done in response to his demands is 299999999/300000000. (But of course it was added by existing Twitter engineers. The odds of Musk being able to actually commit code to their repository are zero. Even if he had the permissions, the man simply does not have the technical acumen to make even a trivial change.)
  - v0idzer0 4y ago
    This is a weird nitpick that doesn’t attack the argument at all. It’s a dense codebase but whatever measure you personally prefer
    - jsnell 4y ago
      JoshCole is doing a computation to arrive at the conclusion that there's a <1% chance that this code was added after Musk bought Twitter. I'm using the same methodology with at least equally plausible inputs to arrive at there being a >>99% chance of it. How is that a nitpick? They're diametrically opposite results.
      - JoshCole 4y ago
        I'm JoshCole and I didn't find your reply to be a nitpick; you are right that the probability ought to be higher than 1%. My calculation was simplistic and I felt it was prudent to arrive at low probability, because I think probability of wanting something given claim of wanting it removed should probably not be anywhere near close to certain. My estimate isn't 1% though. It was just a short thing to share that gave an intuition for why it might be reasonable to assume he didn't know or want it. In my opinion if you really care about this topic the right thing to do is ask someone at Twitter when the change was made. Getting more information would make us converge on the true estimate faster than arguing the odds IMO. Feel free to update me with the results if you do end up doing that so I can adjust my beliefs accordingly. I'm not going to try to gain this information, because I don't think the question matters much.
  - JoshCole 4y ago
    I think you are right, my estimate is much much too low. I'll explain my mistake and why I made it. I think I thought to use the estimate I did because Elon claimed he didn't know. The prior probability of not knowing something in a code base with millions of lines is very high, but contingent on his involvement in the change the prior that he is aware of it is much higher. So I started the estimate attempt with the probability that I thought better predicted the production of evidence claiming he didn't know. Your point does raise my estimate substantially, but I think it probably raises it less than you would expect. I don't agree with your 1/300M prior, because I'm aware that hot users get special treatment. I've seen Elon's account thrown around in interview-style questions about hot users before and used as an example of a hot account that needs special treatment. This is something I've witnessed, but it wasn't contingent on Twitter being acquired and it happened prior to Twitter being acquired. I also don't particularly assign high odds to wanting it, based on the evidence that he claimed to not want it implicitly by wanting it removed. I don't think it seems appropriate to get to near certain probability the he wanted it with the evidence being that he stated that he didn't want it. In my view there isn't a compelling reason for him to lie about this. He owns Twitter, so if he wanted them to have his account monitored that would be a reasonable thing well within his authority. If he wanted it, he doesn't need to pretend to not want it in order to appease someone. It does seem to me that the odds that the change was added in response to someone thinking he wanted it is much higher than 1%.
v0idzer0 4y ago
The same reason there are ones for other people? When they make changes, they want to see how it affects the visibility of their most popular accounts
human 4y ago
If I were Elon, first thing I would have done is ctrl+f “elon”…

XorNot 4y ago

Of course he did because it makes him look bad and he's desperate for praise and attention. What he wanted was everything that feature provides, without it ever being shown that it's there. But since he refuses to hire PR people and almost certainly came up with this idea in the last few days, no one was paid to hide its existence. The next story out of Twitter will be the remaining engineers being threatened because Musk can't see his tweet statistics any more.

BurningFrog 4y ago
Elon does seek attention, but he seems to enjoy conflict far more than praise!
nonethewiser 4y ago
This is pure speculation.