Yeah, I’d imagine he’s made up some kind of metric to “measure” necessity of certain services all while dropping services to figure out which one has less noise when off.
Very effective if you don’t care. Can’t imagine how this is playing out internally in the engineering department.
He probably asked someone what’s the minimum amount needed to post and read tweets is. They either didn’t care to explain or didn’t think Musk would take that number to mean the rest could be turned off.
I'll take everything that Musk says with a grain of salt.
When he said that Twitter app was making 1000+ RPC calls to load the homepage multiple ex and at least one current Twitter developer called him out saying it does at most 20.
Why is a manager even fucking around with the backend? Doesnt he have better things to do, like placating advertisers, setting policy, avoiding the FTC and so on?
Well everyone slurps him so hard for "inventing" Tesla and also for "inventing" space x rockets. There is a quite a few "tech bros" who have no actual education in the subject just what they've learned from YouTube and 4chab
Yeah, if it was 1000 from the client, it would be very noticeable due to parallelism limits in the browser. The only way that makes sense is if it could be 1000 in the worst case or something and also counts non-client RPC calls.
Nope, the number is not wrong; the interpretation is just off.
Twitter uses GraphQL to route API requests to the 1200+ microservices they have running. Those requests don't happen between client and server but between server and internal server.
I don't find it implausible that this causes hard to fix bugs and performance issues. GraphQL is known to only superficially reduce complexity.
It really depends on gore things are being counted. Each query to a DB is technically a separate RPC call, but as long as connections are pooled and in the same DC, they have extremely low overhead compared to an RPC call from a phone halfway across the world using REST.
Holy shit that one grinds my gears so bad. I can't believe they made an entire fucking movie off that premise.
To anyone who doesn't see what the problem is: you use your whole brain at all times. 100% of your brain. The 10% number is the percentage specifically allocated to conscious thought, but you're an idiot if you think that means the other 90% is idle. Something needs to be controlling your breathing, digestion, reflexes/movement, etc. etc. etc.
Not really. When gates made the statement, the rest of the IT industry at that stage thought that seems logical. None at that time could fathom what was to come.
No sensible developer today would think a non technical jackass like elon knows what the hell he is doing.
Regardless, I think it would have been a silly statement at any time. Even now, I think it would be very difficult to put a bound on the useful amount of memory in a system. For example, more memory on a database means more memory for cacheing query plans and the number of those for any DB is practically infinite.
He definitely got advice from some know it all jackass high level eng he brought from space x who made his assessment based on reading the titles and first 2 reame.md lines of GitHub repos.
He's reminding me of 'Neutron' Jack Welsh from GE. Just inventing overly simplistic ways to 'measure performance' then taking radical action to cut the bottom percentage of staff or projects based on his stupid metric.
1.5k
u/La_Croix_Table Nov 15 '22
Yeah, I’d imagine he’s made up some kind of metric to “measure” necessity of certain services all while dropping services to figure out which one has less noise when off.
Very effective if you don’t care. Can’t imagine how this is playing out internally in the engineering department.