logoalt Hacker News

phillipcarteryesterday at 10:28 PM1 replyview on HN

> What on earth do you do with that many devs on a project like Messenger? I mean, really?

Over 1 billion monthly users and over 100 billion messages a day, much of which is multimedia. Plus ads, payments, business integrations, a developer platform...

...you need quite a lot of devs for that, even if you freeze all feature development forever.

> Musk chopped an awful lot of headcount at Twitter, right, and proved it was overkill, has that panned out?

It has panned out for Musk to have a radical right-wing echo chamber for him and his supporters. It has not panned out in terms of revenue growth, user growth, or site stability metrics. The President (another terminally online man), who he even helped elect, still posts on Truth Social instead.


Replies

kelnostoday at 3:43 AM

> Over 1 billion monthly users and over 100 billion messages a day, much of which is multimedia. Plus ads, payments, business integrations, a developer platform...

Right, but it's already doing that, and runs just fine, from what I understand. The developers don't have to sit there pounding the enter key on their keyboards over and over all day to keep the messages flowing.

Is the user count and message rate growing so quickly that people are constantly needing to make architectural changes and performance improvements in order to keep it scaling up? Does adding new capacity need constant human intervention?

Or are they adding new crazy features all the time that are genuinely challenging to implement?

As a software developer who has worked on big distributed systems, I'm well aware that things take a lot more work than they often seem from the outside, but this strains belief.

> It has panned out for Musk to have a radical right-wing echo chamber for him and his supporters.

I suspect this was the goal all along. Twitter didn't have to grow revenue/profit-wise; those two metrics could even decline, and Musk would be happy. He just needed to find a side-business for Twitter to get into (which turned out to be AI datacenters) that could make some cash to help keep the lights on. The point of owning Twitter wasn't the business; the point was for Musk to be able to control discourse in exactly the way he wanted.

show 2 replies