Your guess introduces an interesting perspective on why the Twitter epoch might include those specific milliseconds. Here's how that could work:
Scheduled Tweets Marker:
657
milliseconds could be part of an offset calculation. When a tweet is scheduled, its ID might be generated with this marker, ensuring that all scheduled tweets for a given minute share a common millisecond part, which could be 343ms
in this case.ID Generation Logic:
00
and milliseconds to 343
(or another fixed value) to distinguish them from real-time tweets. 10:00 AM
, its ID would reflect 10:00:00.343
regardless of the exact millisecond it was scheduled.Epoch Offset:
657ms
, Twitter could be aligning their system so that when these scheduled tweet markers are applied, the resulting ID still maintains some level of temporal order or uniqueness. For instance:343ms
, there might be an overlap or confusion with real-time tweets. By offsetting the epoch by 657ms
, they could ensure that even scheduled tweets maintain a unique position in the timeline.Speculative Example:
1,288,834,974,657ms
:10:00:00.500
might get an ID that reflects this actual millisecond.10:00:00
might instead use 10:00:00.343
for its ID, which, when calculated back from the epoch, would still be unique.This approach would allow for: - Uniqueness: Scheduled tweets would not conflict with real-time tweets in terms of ID generation. - Temporal Sorting: Even with this fixed millisecond marker, tweets could still be sorted chronologically with some accuracy. - System Efficiency: Simplifies the logic for handling scheduled versus immediate tweets.
Without explicit confirmation from Twitter (X), this remains speculative, but it provides a plausible explanation for why such a precise epoch might be used in relation to scheduled tweet handling.