←back to thread

420 points rvz | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.83s | source | bottom
Show context
pfraze ◴[] No.41412758[source]
Copying over my latest backend status update; figure folks would find it interesting

Servers are holding up so far! Fortunately we were overprovisioned. If we hit 4mm new signups then things should get interesting. We did have some degradations (user handles entering an invalid state, event-stream crashed a couple times, algo crashed a couple times, image servers hit bad latencies) but we managed to avoid a full outage.

We use an event-sourcing model which is: K/V database for primary storage (actually sqlite), into a golang event stream, then into scylladb for computed views. Various separate services for search, algorithms, and images. Hybrid on-prem & cloud. There are ~20 of the k/v servers, 1 event-stream, 2 scylla clusters (I believe).

The event-stream crash would cause the application to stop making progress on ingesting events, but we still got the writes, so you'd see eg likes failing to increment the counter but then magically taking effect 60 seconds later. Since the scylla cluster and the KV stores stayed online, we avoided a full outage.

replies(9): >>41412984 #>>41413343 #>>41413506 #>>41413569 #>>41415242 #>>41415812 #>>41416225 #>>41417516 #>>41417547 #
pcwalton ◴[] No.41413569[source]
It's frustrating that anything related to X/Twitter is such a predictably-partisan tinderbox because this is really interesting technical information. Thank you for sharing it!
replies(1): >>41414443 #
kstenerud ◴[] No.41414443[source]
It's partisan/political because Musk is partisan/political. And it's not just Musk.

We've been living in a fantasy land of "no political affiliation" in the tech world for decades, and now that the age of the hyper-rich has come once again, they are realizing the benefits of using the power they wield to shape the worlds they live in.

So now in the early stages of this century's great fight, we'll see our beloved tech giants join the political fray in full force, dragging their follower armies along for the ride.

And it works, too. Just look at the comments here.

replies(9): >>41414549 #>>41414566 #>>41414571 #>>41414596 #>>41414987 #>>41415229 #>>41415701 #>>41416661 #>>41417566 #
nox101 ◴[] No.41414596[source]
so strange for you to blame this on Musk. Twitter was already super partisan long before he took it over
replies(3): >>41414616 #>>41414672 #>>41415420 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41414616[source]
> Twitter was already super partisan long before he took it over

Sure. But Elon changed teams. He used to be bipartisan. But he chose a champion in the aftermath of Covid and--by the looks of it--he's chosen a bad one.

(In an alternate universe where Musk stuck to what he's good at, I could see the entire Artemis programme being delegated to SpaceX and a bipartisan adoption of Tesla as America's EV standard bearer. Instead, there is real political capital in creating a rival to SpaceX. And Tesla is going to have to constantly be on the defence against cheap Chinese imports from the Democrats and establishment Republicans.)

replies(4): >>41414695 #>>41414984 #>>41415488 #>>41415814 #
pfannkuchen ◴[] No.41414695[source]
I think people see Musk differently from how he actually is. Or at least how he sees himself.

He has always said, for many years, that he got into SpaceX to work towards the goal of making humans a multiplanetary species, and he got into electric cars to work towards the goal of having a sustainable energy society.

I think he legitimately believes that “the woke mind virus” is an existential threat to our society, and if that threat isn’t addressed then the other goals don’t matter because society will collapse before they can be realized.

From a near term business perspective his political actions are dumb, but from a personal motivation perspective they make total sense.

Or in other words, Musk is primarily driven by a savior complex, not greed (which is unfortunate for investors).

replies(6): >>41414719 #>>41414836 #>>41414915 #>>41415329 #>>41415787 #>>41416745 #
jdietrich ◴[] No.41414836[source]
I remember when the Toyota Prius was a potent symbol of everything that was wrong with smug liberals. Lazy comedians still use the Prius as a punchline. Why doesn't a Tesla Model 3 carry the same sort of political baggage? Why don't right-wing conspiracy theorists consider Musk to be part of the "WHO/WEF globalist elite", despite the fact that he's a tech billionaire who is literally trying to plug people's brains into The Matrix and colonise space?

By taking sides in a partisan culture war, he has made his core mission essentially non-partisan. Maybe he does really believe all of that stuff about "the woke mind virus", or maybe he realised that he can buy a priceless amount of political capital amongst people who would instinctively hate the goals of his project just by uttering the right incantations.

replies(5): >>41414866 #>>41414930 #>>41414992 #>>41415276 #>>41415374 #
ZeroGravitas ◴[] No.41414992[source]
Weirdly Hybrids have now become a climate denial fave.

In any thread about EVs there is a typical HN commenter desperate to tell you that they drive a hybrid, not an EV like those silly virtue signalers.

For those who remember the vicious attacks on the Prius it's a wild shift in attitude.

replies(1): >>41415096 #
1. wordofx ◴[] No.41415096[source]
Weird how pointing out climate change inaccuracies destroyed scientific debate.

In any thread about climate change they are desperate to tell you that you’re a climate denier when you point out inaccurate information.

For those who remember the vicious attacks on science, we called that the dark ages.

replies(2): >>41415271 #>>41415368 #
2. pavlov ◴[] No.41415271[source]
In the late 1990s there were still medical scientists who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS. This was at a time when effective drugs were already approved and saving lives.

Those scientists believed they were asking reasonable questions and pointing out potential inaccuracies. But imagine you were an HIV positive patient in 1995 and you latched on to this scientific debate to conclude that probably you should just eat a lot of vitamins and things will work out fine, since the scientists can’t seemingly even agree on whether you’ll get AIDS…

This is not a theoretical example. AIDS denialism cost hundreds of thousands of lives during roughly 1995-2005. There was a Nobel prize winner (Kary Mullis) who supported the movement with his authority despite never having done any HIV research. The government of South Africa was also involved for their own political reasons.

It was a lot like today’s climate change denialism and needs to be remembered. The major difference is that the personal consequences of HIV denialism were felt within a few years on an individual level, so the matter was resolved within decades. With climate change, it’s going to take a century and today’s denialists won’t be around to feel the effects.

replies(2): >>41415369 #>>41415624 #
3. bgarbiak ◴[] No.41415368[source]
"Pointing out inaccurate information" in HN comments is not scientific debate, nor a science.
4. kelnos ◴[] No.41415369[source]
> With climate change, it’s going to take a century and today’s denialists won’t be around to feel the effects.

The thing that is so maddening is that we're already feeling the effects of climate change, but the denialists just claim those effects either aren't really happening, or are caused by something else (without bothering to define "something else").

5. FollowingTheDao ◴[] No.41415624[source]
> In the late 1990s there were still medical scientists who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS

This is how science works. Being right is not "science". Science is verb. If the questioners were right we would be calling them heroes.

replies(1): >>41415971 #
6. pavlov ◴[] No.41415971{3}[source]
I said as much in my comment, pointing out that these scientists with differing takes were not the bad guys: “These scientists believed they were asking reasonable questions and pointing out potential inaccuracies.”

The bad guys were the people who took this receding debate within the field as evidence of conspiracies and worse, and convinced thousands of people to treat their AIDS condition with quackery instead of effective drugs derived from the HIV-AIDS theory. The organized denialism killed people. That’s not science.

replies(1): >>41419165 #
7. wordofx ◴[] No.41419165{4}[source]
Well with climate change we have no scientists saying otherwise because we see they get attacked and lose funding by the quackery of the public and governments. As evident by the idiots on HN.
replies(1): >>41423357 #
8. pavlov ◴[] No.41423357{5}[source]
Funding is a red herring. Powerful interests would love to fund serious climate science that could assure the status quo is fine. If only they could find serious climate scientists willing to claim that.

Fifty years ago, there was no shortage of funding for medical scientists who tried to prove that tobacco didn't cause cancer. (You can guess where that funding came from.)