But reducing file sizes by one percent, if done by an automatic tool, is a perfectly worthwhile reason. You don't need any other justification.
Or you wouldn't, of course, if it weren't for some browsers being broken and unable to handle it.
Or you wouldn't, of course, if it weren't for some browsers being broken and unable to handle it.
As for "they aren't going to notice that 1% file size", you could keep saying that about small optimization after small optimization until your compiler's output is 10% bigger than the competition's, at which point you will start losing significant user base.
You're making a blanket statement about Twitter developing bad code because of a recent bug. It will be fixed.
But I don't think we need to think of it in terms of Twitter's scale at all. The point is that saving 1% for basically free, is saving 1% for basically free, and that's worthwhile no matter how big you are. On its own, it's a drop in the bucket, but the cumulative effect of many small low-opportunity-cost savings is a significant low-opportunity-cost saving.