figured we'd be able to @ threads by name or at least project. coming soon, or am I just missing something? currently if I want thread1 in projectA to tell something to thread2 in projectB, I'm contextmenu-copying the session id of the thread2 and giving it to thread1. not ideal

Zamfara Banditry: A Thread1/ The oldest known bandit incident in Northwest Nigeria dates to 1901; a trade caravan of 12,000 camels was raided and 210 traders killed. This wasn't new.The land has always had a violent underbelly.But what happened a century later would be far worse

#Thread1 @hospaz has commenced its 2026 Membership Coordination Meetings with Mash East members in Marondera Participants emphasized that #PalliativeCare is for everyone and shared how communities are supporting patients despite resource challenges. @APCAssociation @MoHCCZim

#THREAD1 #RDC #AFC_M23 Après une semaine de combats intenses, pas de changements majeurs sur les lignes de front. Au #Sud_Kivu, le #Twirwanaho alliés à l’#AFC_M23, contrôlent la totalité de #Minembwe Centre et les environs et une partie de Kakenge.

Thread1/10 Most traders only see the final swap What they don't see is the work happening behind the scenes to find the best route That's exactly what @odosprotocol is built for Why the Solana launch matters and how Odos helps traders get more from every swap $DOS #Solana #DeFi

Say we have two threads: "Thread1" & "Thread2". If Thread1 is executing in method 1, can Thread2 then execute in method 2?

THREAD1/4 馬德里到阿拉木圖 想了很久，終於決定： 不為難自己，不為難路程。 奧迪也好，哈雷也罷 — 沒有嚮導的東方， 不值得我硬撐。 阿拉木圖是我最後的站， 戈爾戈斯是我最後的門。 你來，我們喝一杯。 你不來，我敬風一杯 — 然後轉身。

Learnt this the hard way long back. synchronized locks the object instance to a thread. So Thread2 will remain in BLOCKED status even if it enters method2. Once Thread1 releases it, Thread2 will acquire the lock on the object, in this case, "this"

Both threads are trying to run on this which means simultaneous execution not possible, because thread1 locked entire this object so thread2 has to wait ubtil thread1 completes its execution and releases the lock.

Yes, they can. Synchronized in Java locks per object instance. If Thread1 holds method1 and method2 is synchronized separately, thread2 can run method2 unless the synchronization shares the same lock. The real complexity emerges when you realize synchronized methods all lock the same object instance (this). So if both are synchronized, thread2 must wait for thread1 to release the lock. Method boundaries don't create separate locks; the object does. Most teams discover this late: they add synchronized to everything for 'safety', then production performance craters under load because all threads serialize on one lock. The cascade effect is brutal, one lock contention point stops the entire application. The fix was atomic operations on primitives, separate ReentrantLock instances for different concerns, and understanding that 'synchronized' is a mutual exclusion strategy, not a universal safety device. Context matters.

No, not on the same object instance... Both methods are synchronizing on: synchronized(this) which means they use the same monitor lock. If Thread1 enters: method1() and acquires this lock, then Thread2 trying to execute: method2() on the same object will block until Thread1 releases the lock...