Yep. Load balancing means that you could be looking at a part of the network which has the newer value one minute then at another part which has an old value the next. YouTube handles an incredible amount of data, not just for the videos but for views, upvotes, downvotes and the same for comments. This kind of "we'll get there sooner or later" optimization is pretty inevitable.
"YouTube handles an incredible amount of data, not just for the videos but for views, upvotes, downvotes and the same for comments"
And their way to help alleviate some of that load is to address .. that is .. to do, then, undo, then do, then undo, then do, then undo, etc, .. the Same enumeration Multiple different times? lol
Rather than having one-line which simply Updates the integer value whenever newer information (or batches thereof) obtain round-robin.
There's no rational explanation (besides 'curating') which can explain an already-logged value 'going down'.
As a simplified analogy, how does '30 + 15 = 24'?
Sure .. 30.
Sure .. 15.
Sure .. busy and waiting.
But, however long one waits, 30 + 15 = 45.
Did thousands of anti-people from a reverse anti-matter universe un-watch the video?
Did thousands of anti-people from a reverse anti-matter universe un-comment on the video?
🤷♂️
Aaaaand, then simply demonstrate an MSNBC or Rap video exhibiting the same behavior.
You're not getting it. There is not one authoritative place. That value is stored multiple places throughout the vast YouTube network and you might be accessing the new value then an old value from somewhere else on the network. I posted a link in another part of the thread but happy to post it again.
From a technical standpoint the only way that makes sense is a large enough pool of people accidentally clicking like then deselecting which seems like way too high a number to fit that explanation.
Yes. There definitely appears to be fuckery going on. Just don't get too hung up on minor short-term anomolies. They're mostly serving cat videos, not electing the leader of the free world (though they try).
YouTube has a big network and not all parts of it are caught up with the other parts. I wouldn't read too much into it in the short term.
'Not being caught up', at 2020 optical carrier speeds 🤦♂️, makes a number Already Counted go Backwards??
This would explain much of the Biden election.
Yep. Load balancing means that you could be looking at a part of the network which has the newer value one minute then at another part which has an old value the next. YouTube handles an incredible amount of data, not just for the videos but for views, upvotes, downvotes and the same for comments. This kind of "we'll get there sooner or later" optimization is pretty inevitable.
"YouTube handles an incredible amount of data, not just for the videos but for views, upvotes, downvotes and the same for comments"
And their way to help alleviate some of that load is to address .. that is .. to do, then, undo, then do, then undo, then do, then undo, etc, .. the Same enumeration Multiple different times? lol
Rather than having one-line which simply Updates the integer value whenever newer information (or batches thereof) obtain round-robin.
There's no rational explanation (besides 'curating') which can explain an already-logged value 'going down'.
As a simplified analogy, how does '30 + 15 = 24'?
Sure .. 30.
Sure .. 15.
Sure .. busy and waiting.
But, however long one waits, 30 + 15 = 45.
Did thousands of anti-people from a reverse anti-matter universe un-watch the video?
Did thousands of anti-people from a reverse anti-matter universe un-comment on the video?
🤷♂️
Aaaaand, then simply demonstrate an MSNBC or Rap video exhibiting the same behavior.
Should I wait?
I just ran across this too. Looks like it will be good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY_2gElt3SA
You're not getting it. There is not one authoritative place. That value is stored multiple places throughout the vast YouTube network and you might be accessing the new value then an old value from somewhere else on the network. I posted a link in another part of the thread but happy to post it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eventual_consistency
That too. Good point.
From a technical standpoint the only way that makes sense is a large enough pool of people accidentally clicking like then deselecting which seems like way too high a number to fit that explanation.
Nah. You can be viewing new then old data. Just depends where the load balancer sends your request.
Yes. There definitely appears to be fuckery going on. Just don't get too hung up on minor short-term anomolies. They're mostly serving cat videos, not electing the leader of the free world (though they try).
Youtub is not long for this world.
Here's hoping.