zlacker

>>ZacnyL+(OP)
Speaking from very painful, personal experience, few things are more agitating than being forced to execute on something you fully know is a horrible idea, especially when you tried and failed to communicate this fact to the individual pushing you to go against your best judgement.

Even more so when that person later loudly proclaims that they never made such a request, even when provided with written proof.

I can of course not say whether the people currently working at Twitter did warn that the recent measures could have such major side effects, but I would not be surprised in the slightest, considering their leadership's mode of operation.

Even as someone who very much detests what Twitter has become over the last few months and in fact did not like Twitter before the acquisition, partly due to short format making nuance impossible, but mostly for the effect Tweets easy embeddability had on reporting (3 Tweets from random people should not serve as the main basis for an article in my opinion), I must say, I feel very sorry for the people forced to work at that company under that management.

>>Topfi+Ew
The people at Twitter who understood the system and could predict the side effects were all fired or left. My guess is Elon said "the site's too slow!" Engineers noticed that the home feed request was slow. They didn't understand how it worked, had no tools to profile it, and were given an unrealistic deadline to fix it. So about the only thing they could do was issue multiple, parallel requests and hope that at least one of them was fast.

I worked in the games industry for a while, and came to understand how they could spend so much money and so much time, and yet release a game where even basic functionality was broken. It's exactly this sort of extreme schedule pressure that, ironically, makes a huge morass where changing one thing breaks 10 other things, so progress grinds to a halt.

>>martin+oN
> The people at Twitter who understood the system and could predict the side effects were all fired or left.

You have zero idea if that is true or not.

>>sigzer+O51
The current state of Twitter seems to indicate there's a significant problem with the code, which implies the people who would have either spotted that before it was deployed or fixed it quickly afterwards, are unable to do so. Given the number of layoffs and resignations Occam's Razor would suggest the reason is because those people aren't available to do that work.

We don't kmow it's true but it is a likely explanation.

>>onion2+Rk1
But these are "significant problems with the code" which evidently can't be fixed by simply reverting relevant changes. In that case, it seems more likely to me that these are due to long-standing issues which would have caught up to the company sooner or later.