zlacker

I can replicate this behavior fairly easily in a browser.

  1. Open incognito window in Chrome
  2. Visit https://t.co/4fs609qwWt -> 5s delay
  3. Open a second tab in the same window -> no delay
  4. Close window, start a new incognito session
  5. Visit https://t.co/4fs609qwWt -> 5s delay returns

>>ender7+(OP)
The reason there isn't a delay the second click is because the redirect is cached locally in your browser.

Your humble anonymous tipster would appreciate if you do a little legwork.

>>ender7+(OP)
What is that attempting to prove or replicate?

Here's a simpler test I think replicates what I am indicating in GP comment, with regards to cookie handling:

Not passing a cookie to the next stage; pure GET request:

    $ time curl -s -A "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0" -e ";auto" -L https://t.co/4fs609qwWt > nocookie.html

    real    0m4.916s
    user    0m0.016s
    sys     0m0.018s

Using `-b` to pass the cookies _(same command as above, just adding `-b`)_

    $ time curl -s -b -A "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0" -e ";auto" -L https://t.co/4fs609qwWt > withcookie.html

    real    0m1.995s
    user    0m0.083s
    sys     0m0.026s

Look at the differences in the resulting files for 'with' and 'no' cookie. One redirect works in a timely manner. The other takes the ~4-5 seconds to redirect.

>>Pengui+D6
In your second example you are passing the cookie file named ./-A then trying to GET the URL "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0" followed by https://t.co/4fs609qwWt

>>Pengui+D6
You're completely missing the point, which is that the 5 second delay doesn't exist at all for most t.co links, even without cookies. The delay only exists for a few Musk-hated domains.

>>xslowz+t3
> The reason there isn't a delay the second click is because the redirect is cached locally in your browser.

No, because it’s not an HTTP redirect. It’s an HTML page that redirects you using a meta tag, something that the browser doesn’t cache.

>>hk__2+zM2
Your humble anonymous tipster notes to their skeptical audience that browsers are capable of caching all sorts of things, even something as peculiar as an HTML page.

>>xslowz+ci5
> browsers are capable of caching all sorts of things, even something as peculiar as an HTML page.

Yes, and this is irrelevant to your previous comment: caching the HTML doesn’t cache the redirect itself.

>>hk__2+mw5
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. The delay was not on the HTML page.

>>xslowz+t47
> The delay was not on the HTML page.

Nobody is saying that.