5 ms·

Sounds like they introduced a bug in their link shotener, not that the actual media is "wiped out". In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code b

Sounds like they introduced a bug in their link shotener, not that the actual media is "wiped out". In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code between hyperlinks from one page to another, add this to the pile...

nomilk 3y ago
Since the problem is that the links to media were broken and we know at least one - Ellen's - was fixed, does that imply the others can/will be fixed too? If so, and if they can be restored programmatically, then this would seem to be a very minor technical stuff up. But if the pictures/media is effectively rendered inaccessible (e.g forever), that's a much bigger deal.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  It seems… unlikely that they’ve just totally lost the data (that is, what the shortened links point to). I mean, it’s clearly not being fun very well right now, but that seems too incompetent.
  - johannes1234321 3y ago
    Aside from competency as a reason there is also cost. Dropping all that old media reduces storage cost. The connection to the link preview subsystem might be, that they tried to get rid of the old media system. Just for speculation ...
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      There's also the fact that the service formerly known as Twitter is running on a skeleton crew. This could easily lead to a buildup in cruft, undetected or unnoticed system errors, or any number of maintenance issues that could result in something like this.
      - hedora 3y ago
        I like to think they cut costs by lopping letters off the word twitter until all they had left was a “t”, and then some bozo walked up and kicked the remaining character over.
      - throwaw1yyy 3y ago
        site runs better since his takeover despite what the haters say. I have a large follower account - responsiveness has improved. There are downsides, with new features, algo changes etc but overall it’s been getting better.
        seba_dos1 3y ago
        We all have access to Twitter and can see its downfall with our own eyes.
        throwaw1yyy 3y ago
        https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1693095184597151822?s=20 https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1693095184597151822?s=20 Mark Cuban seems to agree, and I am also a heavy user seeing the same thing. What in particular are you seeing a proof of a downfall?
        sundaeofshock 3y ago
        Dude, I don’t think Elon is going to see this.
        throwaw1yyy 3y ago
        I could care less about Elon https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1693095184597151822?s=20 https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1693095184597151822?s=20 Here’s Mark Cuban saying the tech/responsiveness has improved. Does he seem like the kinda guy who needs to suck up to anyone? A guy with fuckyu levels of money?
        3y ago
bdcravens 3y ago
If I pull the hard drive out from a database server, and put it in a drawer, that data isn't "wiped out" either.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 93po 3y ago
  But that doesn’t make for the Elon hating headline everyone foams at the mouth for
  - bdcravens 3y ago
    Anti-Twitter headlines aren't new, they existed well before Elon was strong-armed into following through with his purchase. Additionally, whether the data is "wiped out" or inaccessible is irrelevant to the end user. It's the same result.
combat-banana 3y ago
“ In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code between hyperlinks from one page to another, add this to the pile...” This sentence doesn’t seem to be complete. What did you mean?
- pdntspa 3y ago
  It means that we should be linking directly to resources, not shortening URLs.
  - ehnto 3y ago
    The <a> tag supports displaying human readable text in place of the link, Twitter could have supported that and not counted the actual link. But we all know the real reason link shorteners get used by companies, tracking clicks for third parties so you can get sweet affiliate cash.
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      The original limitation was due to the fact that Twitter started as an SMS text blogging service. After they moved away from that, the character count limitation has never been a technical limitation.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    On the other hand, shortening URLs are handy if they are used directly, and it also allows resources to be moved easily which is not really a bad thing either. We don't refer to websites by IP address either after all, DNS is pretty similar to a URL shortening service: It makes addresses easier to understand for humans and it allows for flexibility in changing the physical address whenever needed.
  - combat-banana 3y ago
    “ In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code between hyperlinks from one page to another, add this to the pile...” If you add “is a bad idea” after another so that it reads: “ In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code between hyperlinks from one page to another is a bad idea, add this to the pile...” Otherwise the sentence isn’t saying anything as it is worded. Sorry if I am being mistaken here.
flanked-evergl 3y ago
> In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code between hyperlinks from one page to another Would static code have been better? Or would is problem the code part? It's not clear from your statement, and also, there is code between hyperlinks from any page to any other page, that is just how it is. I'm not sure how dynamic code really introduces problems that static code can't though.

nomilk 3y ago

Since the problem is that the links to media were broken and we know at least one - Ellen's - was fixed, does that imply the others can/will be fixed too? If so, and if they can be restored programmatically, then this would seem to be a very minor technical stuff up. But if the pictures/media is effectively rendered inaccessible (e.g forever), that's a much bigger deal.

rsynnott 3y ago
It seems… unlikely that they’ve just totally lost the data (that is, what the shortened links point to). I mean, it’s clearly not being fun very well right now, but that seems too incompetent.
- johannes1234321 3y ago
  Aside from competency as a reason there is also cost. Dropping all that old media reduces storage cost. The connection to the link preview subsystem might be, that they tried to get rid of the old media system. Just for speculation ...
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    There's also the fact that the service formerly known as Twitter is running on a skeleton crew. This could easily lead to a buildup in cruft, undetected or unnoticed system errors, or any number of maintenance issues that could result in something like this.
    - hedora 3y ago
      I like to think they cut costs by lopping letters off the word twitter until all they had left was a “t”, and then some bozo walked up and kicked the remaining character over.
    - throwaw1yyy 3y ago
      site runs better since his takeover despite what the haters say. I have a large follower account - responsiveness has improved. There are downsides, with new features, algo changes etc but overall it’s been getting better.
      - seba_dos1 3y ago
        We all have access to Twitter and can see its downfall with our own eyes.
        throwaw1yyy 3y ago
        https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1693095184597151822?s=20 https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1693095184597151822?s=20 Mark Cuban seems to agree, and I am also a heavy user seeing the same thing. What in particular are you seeing a proof of a downfall?
      - sundaeofshock 3y ago
        Dude, I don’t think Elon is going to see this.
        throwaw1yyy 3y ago
        I could care less about Elon https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1693095184597151822?s=20 https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1693095184597151822?s=20 Here’s Mark Cuban saying the tech/responsiveness has improved. Does he seem like the kinda guy who needs to suck up to anyone? A guy with fuckyu levels of money?
        3y ago

bdcravens 3y ago

If I pull the hard drive out from a database server, and put it in a drawer, that data isn't "wiped out" either.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
93po 3y ago
But that doesn’t make for the Elon hating headline everyone foams at the mouth for
- bdcravens 3y ago
  Anti-Twitter headlines aren't new, they existed well before Elon was strong-armed into following through with his purchase. Additionally, whether the data is "wiped out" or inaccessible is irrelevant to the end user. It's the same result.

combat-banana 3y ago

“ In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code between hyperlinks from one page to another, add this to the pile...” This sentence doesn’t seem to be complete. What did you mean?

pdntspa 3y ago
It means that we should be linking directly to resources, not shortening URLs.
- ehnto 3y ago
  The <a> tag supports displaying human readable text in place of the link, Twitter could have supported that and not counted the actual link. But we all know the real reason link shorteners get used by companies, tracking clicks for third parties so you can get sweet affiliate cash.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    The original limitation was due to the fact that Twitter started as an SMS text blogging service. After they moved away from that, the character count limitation has never been a technical limitation.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  On the other hand, shortening URLs are handy if they are used directly, and it also allows resources to be moved easily which is not really a bad thing either. We don't refer to websites by IP address either after all, DNS is pretty similar to a URL shortening service: It makes addresses easier to understand for humans and it allows for flexibility in changing the physical address whenever needed.
- combat-banana 3y ago
  “ In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code between hyperlinks from one page to another, add this to the pile...” If you add “is a bad idea” after another so that it reads: “ In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code between hyperlinks from one page to another is a bad idea, add this to the pile...” Otherwise the sentence isn’t saying anything as it is worded. Sorry if I am being mistaken here.

flanked-evergl 3y ago

> In case we needed more evidence that putting dynamic code between hyperlinks from one page to another Would static code have been better? Or would is problem the code part? It's not clear from your statement, and also, there is code between hyperlinks from any page to any other page, that is just how it is. I'm not sure how dynamic code really introduces problems that static code can't though.