this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
1480 points (99.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

8522 readers
3595 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phantomwise@lemmy.ml 50 points 1 week ago (15 children)

Yep very weird, should have been 255.

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (6 children)

No, you can't have a group of zero, so the counter doesn't need to waste a position counting zero.

[–] 10OhmResistor@aussie.zone 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

0 is reserved for the FBI agent listening in.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nah, ICE agents don't care about evidence.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 week ago

Also they can't use computers anyway. They just publicly post on social media. It's considered secure because no one likes them enough to follow them.

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you ever create a system where the number of users is "group.members - 1" everywhere in the code, I'd be very disappointed in you and deny that PR.

On another note; I doubt WhatsApp are so concerned with performance they are actually limiting the number of group members by the data type.

[–] BillBurBaggins@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But it wouldn't be like that though would it. It would be public group.members() and the u8 would be private.

If all the millions of groups are saved on a central database then making the size a u8 isn't really that weird

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I hadn't thought about it on their server side tbf. But the more i think about it maybe there are other compounding reasons to keep group sizes small, such as the exponential number of links in a growing network and such. But, that is all beyond my knowledge area.

[–] rollerbang@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Sure you can. It's a group that exists, but it has 0 participants.

[–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

You probably could, if everyone got banned or something

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

Tell that to the Castlevania 2 devs. https://lemmy.ml/comment/19720906

[–] seejur@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You cannot also have a group of 1, therefore either is 255 or 257. 256 is oddly specific (or the code was made by an intern)

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] seejur@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh. At this point I'm not sure what is worse :/

[–] 0laura@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

I mean, should the group and all the messages get deleted when the second to last person leaves? it only makes sense to let it stay as a 1 member group

load more comments (8 replies)