this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
1305 points (99.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
8441 readers
3332 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:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
No, you can't have a group of zero, so the counter doesn't need to waste a position counting zero.
Tell that to the Castlevania 2 devs. https://lemmy.ml/comment/19720906
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)
Sure you can.
Oh. At this point I'm not sure what is worse :/
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
Sure you can. It's a group that exists, but it has 0 participants.
0 is reserved for the FBI agent listening in.
It's an ICE agent now
Nah, ICE agents don't care about evidence.
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.
You probably could, if everyone got banned or something
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.
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
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.