• chowder@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Im just saying, he hasn’t been paying bills and it’s the first of the month.

    • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah. That feels more likely. Twitter has been running for years and likely isn’t a stranger to something like this.

    • Linuxduck@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah something I thought since he was “forced” to buy twitter, was he would just burn it to the ground. What does he care?

      • SpooneyOdin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well he didn’t come up with all the money by himself. He has investors including, I believe the Saudis, so just burning it all down wouldn’t end well for him.

      • Thurstylark@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Less servers able to serve requests means either get overloaded and have downtime, or rate limit and stay up.

        Both are bad, but rate limiting is less bad.

        • catastrophicblues@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I see, I guess at that scale API requests add up. I suppose it is a solution, and if replies don’t count, the limits are rather reasonable.

          • Thurstylark@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, exactly.

            Also worth mentioning, the scale of Twitter also means that they have contractual obligations when it comes to uptime (for advertisers etc), so downtime could be very vostly indeed.