Leon CowleHahahahahahaha. Indeed!
Kim van Wyk@leoncowle good grief - even if they don't know *why* it's significant you'd expect someone writing about computery topics to at least have a feel that the number is special and ask a colleague if it's meaningful, even if just because it comes up so often.
Adrianna Pińska@kimvanwyk @leoncowle Oh, I remember this. They "fixed" it after people complained, and somehow made it about ten^H^H^Height times worse: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/whatsapp-group-chats-bigger-maximum-size-256-people-users-a6856491.html
Claudius Link@leoncowle @confluency @kimvanwyk
I like that they speak of variations.
Shouldn't WhatsApp have picked 255?
Doesn't the question why they picked 256 number make you even more worried if you you understand the significance 😳?
@realn2s The *indices* may go from 0 to 255, but it's still 256 *integers* in total (in this case representing people).
@confluency
Yes, that's my point.
This would mean that the maximum group size is 255 (assuming you need to represent an empty group as well).
WhatsApp increasing the group size to 256 requires 9 bits (and then they could have gone for 511 😜)
Yes, that's my point.
This would mean that the maximum group size is 255 (assuming you need to represent an empty group as well).
WhatsApp increasing the group size to 256 requires 9 bits (and then they could have gone for 511 😜)
Max Pinton@realn2s @confluency My guess, knowing nothing about WhatsApp, is that every chat has an "originator" user_id, so they added a byte for additional users, letting a group chat contain 1 + up to 255 users.
@max @confluency
I'm pretty sure the 255 had no technical meaning but it's rather an "insider" (nerd) joke.
And possible technical meaning would really worry me.
To state it more clearly:
Do not use a byte to represent a number
(If you don't have a real good reason for it (like hw), and you should really know what you are doing!!!)