# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
# 
# Usage:
#     https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users              View list of users and latest twt date.
#     https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt                View all twts.
#     https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri  View all mentions for uri.
#     https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash         View all twts for a conversation subject.
# 
# Options:
#     uri     Filter to show a specific users twts.
#     offset  Start index for quey.
#     limit   Count of items to return (going back in time).
# 
# twt range = 1 19
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/rnf234a
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
One of the reasons we wanted to originally use Contant based addressing and short hashes as our threading model was to keep individual Twts short so that they were still readable if you viewed the manually by hand.

With the proposal to switch to location based addressing using a pointer to a feed and a timestamp in that feed you're looking at roughly 2025 characters long because both the HTTP and HTML and even URI specifications do not specify maximum length for URI(s) AFAIK only recommendations.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
One of the reasons we wanted to originally use Contant based addressing and short hashes as our threading model was to keep individual Twts short so that they were still readable if you viewed the manually by hand.

With the proposal to switch to location based addressing using a pointer to a feed and a timestamp in that feed you're looking at roughly 2025 characters long because both the HTTP and HTML and even URI specifications do not specify maximum length for URI(s) AFAIK only recommendations.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
So for example, if we would use @movq 's feed as an example thread ID here, his feed with a particular timestamp, were already looking at a subject length of 59 bytes +/- a couple of bytes to denote the subject in the Twt itself/
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
So for example, if we would use @movq 's feed as an example thread ID here, his feed with a particular timestamp, were already looking at a subject length of 59 bytes +/- a couple of bytes to denote the subject in the Twt itself/
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
Let's say the overhead is always three bytes two parentheses under space.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
Let's say the overhead is always three boats two parentheses under space.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
Let's say the overhead is always three bytes two parentheses under space.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
With the original specification of 140 character Twt length recommendation. There's only leaves you with about 78 characters worth of anything remotely useful to say in response.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
With the original specification of 140 character Twt length recommendation. There's only leaves you with about 78 characters worth of anything remotely useful to say in response.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
Thank goodness we relaxed that limit and I've stopped being so Puritan about it but my overall point is we would be significantly increasing the human size as well as the machine size of the identity of threads as well as twts
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
Thank goodness we relaxed that limit and I've stopped being so Puritan about it but my overall point is we would be significantly increasing the human size as well as the machine size of the identity of threads as well as twts
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@prologic What’s that in absolute numbers? My ~/Mail/twt is currently 26 MB in size. Increase that by 20% and we get 31.2 MB.

I don’t buy the argument with 2025 bytes. This worst case scenario is not relevant in practice.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@prologic What’s that in absolute numbers? My ~/Mail/twt is currently 26 MB in size. Increase that by 20% and we get 31.2 MB.

I don’t buy the argument with 2025 bytes. This worst case scenario is not relevant in practice.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@prologic What’s that in absolute numbers? My ~/Mail/twt is currently 26 MB in size. Increase that by 20% and we get 31.2 MB.

I don’t buy the argument with 2025 bytes. This worst case scenario is not relevant in practice.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@prologic What’s that in absolute numbers? My ~/Mail/twt is currently 26 MB in size. Increase that by 20% and we get 31.2 MB.

I don’t buy the argument with 2025 bytes. This worst case scenario is not relevant in practice.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
@movq Tbis was just a representative sample. The real concrete cost here is a ~5x increase in memory consumption for yarnd and/or ~5x increase in disk storage.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
@movq Tbis was just a representative sample. The real concrete cost here is a ~5x increase in memory consumption for yarnd and/or ~5x increase in disk storage.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
In fact it depends on how many Twts there are that form part of a thread, if you take a much larger sample size of my own feed for example, it starts to approximate ~1.5x increase in size:


$ ./compare.sh https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt 500
Original file size: 126842 bytes
Modified file size: 317029 bytes
Percentage increase in file size: 149.94%
...
~
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
In fact it depends on how many Twts there are that form part of a thread, if you take a much larger sample size of my own feed for example, it starts to approximate ~1.5x increase in size:


$ ./compare.sh https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt 500
Original file size: 126842 bytes
Modified file size: 317029 bytes
Percentage increase in file size: 149.94%
...
~