EU really like unenforceable regulations, doesn't it?

In the defense of PG, for better or worse as far as I know, the 'what is RDBMS default' falls into two categories;

- Read Committed default with MVCC (Oracle, Postgres, Firebird versions with MVCC, I -think- SQLite with WAL falls under this)

- Read committed with write locks one way or another (MSSQL default, SQLite default, Firebird pre MVCC, probably Sybase given MSSQL's lineage...)

I'm not aware of any RDBMS that treats 'serializable' as the default transaction level OOTB (I'd love to learn though!)

....

All of that said, 'Inconsistent read because you don't know RDBMS and did not pay attention to the transaction model' has a very different blame direction than 'We YOLO fsync on a timer to improve throughput'.

If anything it scares me that there's no other tuning options involved such as number of bytes or number of events.

If I get a write-ack from a middleware I expect it to be written one way or another. Not 'It is written within X seconds'.

AFAIK there's no RDBMS that will just 'lose a write' unless the disk happens to be corrupted (or, IDK, maybe someone YOLOing with chaos mode on DB2?)

I keep reading praise about uv, and every single time I never really understand what problems it addresses.

I've got a couple quite big Django projects for which I've used venv for years, and not once have I had any significant issues with it. Speed at times could have been better and I would have liked to have a full dependency list lock file, but that never caused me issues.

The only thing that comes to mind is those random fails to build of C/C++ dependencies. Does uv address this? I've always seen people rave about other benefits.

> would you apply the same rigorous standards of proof if the algorithmic changes benefited different political figures or viewpoints?

That's the whole point I'm basically making: I think this is an obviously bogus study, but one side will happely take the conclusions as granted because it falls in line with an agenda or narrative - furthering the divisions in society. Which by the way doesn't mean that the other side doesn't spew garbage as well.

But in these specific case, where it's so obvious... We can go on with corona virus lab like I mentioned. In these cases, where the common sense is "turned off" in some people, I really wonder what's going on and speak up. It's absurd.

> The study made an analysis, and concluded that they might point towards there being an algorithmic change.

Yes but you can't do that for the reasons I mentioned. But still doing it and then another study referencing that crap, shows to me that science is not at play here.

> From the information we have it seems like everything points towards this being the case.

Well if Greta Thunberg at the height of her popularity fell from a wind mill, someone could've made the claim Twitter is suddenly boosting a certain group of accounts. The CEO of Twitter even wrote condolences, something is up here!! Sorry, but this garbage.

> What other means exactly? We have no data to go on except observations of what happens on the platform.

Yes that's an issue, but that's not my problem?! If the circumstances do not allow for a proper study, you don't make it. I would look whether the boost in republican engagement came down again. If it stayed on the same level (maybe til today?!), I would agree, something is very fishy. Maybe there is a study that did that already? I don't know.

> The case for manipulation happening furthered even more by Elon Musk repeatedly showing he is full of shit, and has no qualms lying and totally making stuff up.

But this is not a science approach you can enrich a crappy study with. You can surely have that opinion - I have no problem with that. That's an opinion without proof, which I have too on certain topics. But then producing bogus studies to try to turn this opinion into some sort of fact where people point to as "proof" is what makes me upset. It doesn't help the cause, only causes division, because the people pointing think they have science on their side, instead of just having a opinion.

Yeah, the endorsement was mentioned - while the assassination attempt was not.

Here is a quote from that study:

> In Phase Two, comparing Republican-leaning and Democrat-leaning accounts, we again observed an engagement shift around the same date, affecting all metrics

It's so obvious that an assassination attempt on a republican candidate will boost republican engagement MORE than democrats. It's just as obvious that a corona virus outbreak in close proximity to a laboratory which works on corona viruses, escaped very likely from that lab. Common sense. Also for weeks after the event, of course republicans continued to be more riled up about it.

This is not science. If the claim is that Musk tuned the algorithms at that special date, you have to prove it by other means, other than engagement being boosted at that day and weeks to follow.

Remember that old study (which got flagged here!) which claimed Musk tuned the algorithms in favor of republicans starting on..... the day of the assassination attempt? Laughable!

Well that old study got referenced in this study.

"science"

> At least Biden let the process play out before issuing the pardon so the public got to know all the details.

That sentence didn't age well.

Biden preemptively pardons Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley and Jan. 6 committee membershttps://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-preemptively-pardons-a...

President Biden pardons family members in final minutes of presidencyhttps://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-biden-pardons-fami...

Remind me again who pardoned his own son.

This could be a great teaching tool, BUT at about $375 per Mothbox, it's going to be a hard sell for most schools.