Did you actually read the tweet that you replied to?
> "I'm certain I scroll at least 100 tweets/minute."
Many Twitter users, including literally the person you are in conversation with, scroll through dozens/hundreds of tweets a minute.
Not sure if you're actually used Twitter before, but many tweets are only a line or two of text, and it doesn't take more than a second to process them.
Additionally, if you're quickly scrolling through replies or someone's history to try to find something, it can render hundreds of tweets in a matter of seconds.
The grandparent comments are saying that allegedly the limitation is tweets loaded not read. If you scroll past tweets to get to content you actually want to read, allegedly people have reached the daily limits after only a few minutes after opening twitter.
The good faith assumption here is that Twitter only counts tweets read but does that mean the client reads the tweet or the user? The server delivered them all the same, whether a human reads it or not. So does delivery of the tweet by loading it onto the device count or some nebulous amount of time spent lingering on the tweet?
I don’t believe assuming every tweet is read in a feed is good faith. There isn’t a single social media app that I use where I am not quickly scrolling past nonsense all the time.
Just for reference, let's say HN added a similar rate limit. Opening this thread would cost you over 500 comments towards that rate limit. It doesn't mean you read all 500 comments on this post.
More like 6 minutes (600/100) if they're scrolling throughout. Perhaps unrealistic but even given generous allowances, a frequent user of Twitter is screwed within the hour, yes.
I leave it running in a window while I do other things, and check in a few times a day. Thanks to Twitter product "development", the feed now auto-refreshes itself when you get back to it.
