I don't think this is "insightful," rather, funny. It's clearly a joke, something someone would stay that failed to distinguish context. Regardless, this is a scary move. Twitter will be the new AOL (do you still have a friend with an @aol.com email address?). Twitter is talking about the "conversation layer" as activity pub in this context, not censorship. However... it's scarier.

Twitter will not gain a significant number of users with this move, it will simply prevent more people from leaving based on a promise they can tweet to their banned friends on brighteon. A promise that will take forever, that they will promote to keep from losing users. But there is something to look out for...

In the United States, Twitter is going to have big 47 U.S. Code 230 problems, and Canada now, many countries and lawsuits to follow. This is both a defensive tactic and an offensive tactic. Twitter will argue the content is shared, not controlled, they provide only an interface, and the platform irrelevant. They will argue that there are far more egregious offenders using the same protocol and they are being harassed out of political bias. (poor arguments, but they will try anything)

They are trying to keep from losing users, and ad revenue, while setting up legal arguments. They are not doing this out of the kindness in their heart and love for open platforms. And, so"

Actually, very funny, but just thought it was worth pointing out the context...

If things get bad enough for infrastructure such as digital phone and data to go offline then we've got greater problems that POTS couldn't handle anyway. If maintaining POTS is slowing adoption of faster internet infrastructure then it should go. It was fun and I have fond memories of modem connection sounds but... the 1K chunks of files coming over were excruciating to endure.

Fiber Optic right to the home firewall/router is what I'd like to see.

Why not have a "Small Beer"?

Remember that article about the guy who brewed his own beer? He had a hardy version of Saccaromyces Cerevisiae (sp?) resident in his stomach. Everytime he ate anything starchy he got drunk.

Hope they saved a sample of that yeasty.

At this rate, we're gonna be an Internet Third World Country. Not dissing third world countries mind you...

I used to adhere to the Theory of Entropy. Made sense at the time kinda like the flat world and Earth being the center of everything.

With a greater understanding of Physics and Cosmology, I've come to realize that the Earth is not flat nor the center of everything. With the realization that Energy is neither created nor destroyed only converted - the Theory of Entropy is disrupted in my mind and therefore proven false.

Now, discounting Entropy doesn't mean I deny that systems have a tendency to reach a Steady State where a perceived equilibrium has been established.

To me, there are only four primary dimensions.

Length, Width, Height and Time.

The L*W*H dimensions ARE space. No need for a space dimension.

Time is a measurement used to delineate Frames.

I would say, do not limit yourself to only thinking in 2 dimensions as you cannot live in them. It takes 3. I will say that it also takes a bit more thought to see the world or understand it in 3 dimensions. One should try.

I think whether or not the Universe computes is relative.

What is it you're trying to compute? If you are trying to compute the dynamics of the Universe then the Universe does compute. It computes itself better than any other model.

If you are talking about abstractions then probably computers do very well give proper instruction and dataset.

To get a computer to compute the universe is like trying to force a very large round peg into a very small square hole.

Gentoo X n

You are correct. Access in it's simplest form is NOT a true database in that it is not a first class server of data per se. It can be used in a multi-user fashion though. You have multiple users running Access and a client program which is linked to a common Access database file on the network. All the intelligence except for data validation is implemented in the client. Back in the old days (the 90's), Access did not have row-locking but locked chunks of the database. Concurrency was a major issue and required code to bulldoze it's way into a record pessimistic lock so it could store data without stomping on someone else's update. The trick was to pad out the chuck to be one record in size. Wasteful of space but good for performance. These days, the ability to lock an actual row means less space wasted in the database - potentially saving gigabytes in a table with millions of records.

Access is more a Swiss Army Knife type of user database tool than a mission critical system. I wouldn't dream of using it for anything but data analysis of smaller sets of data, reporting and prototyping of client frontsides.

Let's see - proper RDBMS considerations:
Proper normalization of data
Efficient keying for relating data. Compound keys can be difficult to work with.
Use of simplest possible recordset type for working with data.
Understanding of boolean logic and sets. Needful for creating efficient SQL queries.
Understanding of a particular RDBMS's optimization techniques/order of operations.
Data validation to prevent GIGO.
Record locking schemes to prevent inconsistent updates - transactions should be used to minimize impact.
Learn those things which your chosen RDBMS does NOT do well and find a way to optimize or work around them.

Why in the world would Oracle want to make their SQL portable? So their customers could easily migrate to competing RDBMS? All they have to do is to get the managers to buy in and they're set.