> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
This very comment thread is evidence of this. Look at all the people who didn't know that there were infringing binaries, because that is only mentioned in a reply by an obs dev in another tweet.
Twitter is actually an incredible feed if you meticulously scope your feed or lists to industry folks, people doing advocacy for various marginalized groups, and individual journalists (not their news outlets, whose editors add the clickbait). If you do this, Twitter becomes a place where people proudly try to summarize their own intensive research and journalism into 280 characters, and thus present varied insights at extremely high density. Every tweet tends to link the long-form work itself, as well as a thread, by them, that is essentially an abstract for their long-form work. And professionals who want to post off-brand content will often times open up a second account for trivialities, which you can choose not to follow.
To put it another way: If you wanted to capture the zeitgeist of, say, a machine learning conference, and made a user interface to let people summarize their work, speak excitedly about it, be able to present multiple levels of depth (single-sentence, abstract, images, full paper), and throw in the occasional meme whose comment section is actually an insightful take on challenges people are facing... odds are your interface would look very similar to Twitter as it currently exists. The difference, as always, is the content.
Twitter threads can be insightful an informative.
Or maybe you do not: examples given are not similar to what GP refers to.
> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.
One of my most recent grievances is with HN is the ranking penalty of Twitter submissions as that has been the primary source of news lately, for better or for worse.
If the source is Twitter then I much prefer a link to Twitter.
Twitter is popular for people obsessed with hearing the latest rumor, but if TikTok is an illegal fork of OBS, I’d rather hear a few days later the well researched details - or if its a nothingburger overreaction, then I’d rather not hear about it at all.
Do you have a hard link to the source material in this instance? As far as I can tell[1], there isn't an article about this yet; the only results at the time of this comment are about how TikTok will be allowing "OBS-like streaming" soon.
In lieu of an actual article or blog post about this, what would you suggest people link to if not a Twitter thread? Should an issue not be discussed whatsoever if it's only on Twitter?
[1]https://www.google.com/search?q=tiktok+obs&source=lnms&tbm=n...
I don't think that's true. Twitter threads, like it or not, are the medium for a great deal of original insight, public conversation, and ongoing developments.