<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: peoplepostphew</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=peoplepostphew</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 19:13:01 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=peoplepostphew" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by peoplepostphew in "When imperfect systems are good: Bluesky's lossy timelines"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>1200 people is really nothing, specially if you have a job tangentially related to social media (for example journalists). It's really simple, you are not the same type of user. You have 50 "acquaintances", they have 1200 "sources".<p>The article is talking about people who have following/follower counts in the millions. Those are dozens of writes per second in one feed and a fannout of potentially millions. Someone with 1200 followers, if everyone actually posts once a day (most people do not) gets... a rate of 0.138 writes per second.<p>They should be background noise, irrelevant to the discussion. That level of work is within reasonable expectation. What they're pointing out is that Twitter is aggressively anti-perfectionist for no good technical reason - so there must be a business reason for it.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:05:40 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43110238</link><dc:creator>peoplepostphew</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43110238</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43110238</guid></item></channel></rss>