If you check the Obama.org site one two or three weeks from now, you'll probably see a NEW current photo, and when you check the May 17 tweet, you'll see THAT new image too (if and when Twiffer updates their cache.)
Pre-posting theory is bogus.
What other explanation?
A) Q busted the Obama.org programmers pre-checking their card in readiness for the Floyd event?
Conjecture. Any evidence?
B) alt theory:
Q posts 4436 states reconcile.
Anon gets worried, patriots saying "pre-posted" when clearly its not. Asks Q to retract, because patriots are now spreading bogus information. Q replies: Image/card validation code. (often used by programmers to force flush of cache and force update of NEW card/image). Aka Q is replying, "We KNOW that cards update dynamically. Don't sweat it.
Q follows up with 4438 "not all posts are meant for anons".
So which post is not meant for anons? is it 4436? or 4437?
Seems clear it is 4436, but why? That what is unclear, and OPs assertion does not convince me yet.
The article actually explains dynamic linking, and how they do it. It does NOT negate dynamic linking. I.e.
We get a lot of questions about how we generate these default images dynamically.
The script referenced in the article is the one referenced by Q in 4437, and it is one method used to dynamically update by clearing/busting the cache instead of waiting for Twitter to renew it:
There is more to the process than simply generating the image. We also need a cache-busting bot in order to update the card periodically. If we want to show a growing number of comments over time, we cannot wait for Twitter to bust the cache once per week.
The developers reply:
Twitter associates the image with the URL which cannot be changed after it gets tweeted out
Its the URL that cannot be changed, not the image (because the image is dynamcially retrieved FROM the Url site.
T&A theory does not fit even his own references, sadly. Some of the correct pieces wrongly put together, imo.
ready? read, I guess ... and the answer is yes. see my comment:
The sheer fact content can be changed over time on the fly by this process, provided the cache is seeded with more than one pic, is key. It offers the opportunity to generate content on the fly.
The question becomes: has it?
And, precisely in the latter part of the thread, was one pic only used? It seems that way.
view the rest of the comments →
Christosgnosis ago
Well, there's no sauce yet to indicate this is what happened.
But here's another, alternative take (and is not necessarily exclusive to the OP posted here):
Q4436 points out we're dealing with a Jim Jones style religious cult, fully with its own George-Floyd-as-a-martyred-Jesus narrative (let me explain)
FractalizingIron ago
Thank you Christo.
I've read the anon assertion in the OP, but see NO EVIDENCE for it yet.
I mean, its clear that Obama.org did NOT pre-post the Floyd Pic. See below
archived copy of Obama.org on May 17.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200517224631/https://www.obama.org/
here is the code.
view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20200517224631/https://www.obama.org/
Can you find the floyd image (053020_GeorgeFloyd_Protests_Chicago_IL_CD_1588-scaled.jpg) anywhere here? No.
If you saw the Obama.org tweet (May 17) on May 17 (up until May 30, probs) you would see this:
https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/M1Hi_j0246-copy-scaled-e1588695935923.jpg
The image name is M1Hi_j0246-copy-scaled-e1588695935923.jpg
archive of Obama.org on June 1.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200601092747/https://www.obama.org/
Here is the code:
view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20200601092747/https://www.obama.org/
You will see that the Floyd Image is NOT current.
https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/053020_GeorgeFloyd_Protests_Chicago_IL_CD_1588-scaled.jpg
If you check the Obama.org site one two or three weeks from now, you'll probably see a NEW current photo, and when you check the May 17 tweet, you'll see THAT new image too (if and when Twiffer updates their cache.)
So which post is not meant for anons? is it 4436? or 4437?
Seems clear it is 4436, but why? That what is unclear, and OPs assertion does not convince me yet.
redtoe_skipper ago
Yes there is. Q4436
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1269461735037001728.html
FractalizingIron ago
That thread is seriously debunked, too full of holes.
he says the article was quickly removed to hide his discovery. The article is still available.
https://dev.to/ben/how-devto-dynamically-generates-social-images--2c2n
The article actually explains dynamic linking, and how they do it. It does NOT negate dynamic linking. I.e.
The developers reply:
Its the URL that cannot be changed, not the image (because the image is dynamcially retrieved FROM the Url site.
T&A theory does not fit even his own references, sadly. Some of the correct pieces wrongly put together, imo.
redtoe_skipper ago
You may have a correct point there.....
In effect what you are saying is the link is static, and retrieves whatever content is provided on the fly.
So, we have a link and a cache with one or more images.
Hit enter and new content appears.
Christosgnosis ago
Ah, did you not ready that thread to the very end? Very different from where it started off at
redtoe_skipper ago
ready? read, I guess ... and the answer is yes. see my comment:
The sheer fact content can be changed over time on the fly by this process, provided the cache is seeded with more than one pic, is key. It offers the opportunity to generate content on the fly.
The question becomes: has it?
And, precisely in the latter part of the thread, was one pic only used? It seems that way.