bjhartin

> but the challenge is if folks can access the database directly

This is not the challenge. The challenge is that you think you can do an 'almost-as-good' job of data integrity as the RDBMS designers.

Even if you could, you will not always be the person that maintains that code.

It seems to me the utility of the 'good' 50% depends entirely upon your ability to recognize it.

How do you know when to dig through those obscure manuals?

It seems to me that it'd be more useful when:

a) I don't care whether the text says things which are not true

Write me a poem about ...

b) I care, and will have to verify it's results, but that cost is worth it

Generate some test data ...

I think we're at a very dangerous intersection between an apparent decline in American's ability to detect nonsense and an automated way to create convincing nonsense.

This. What a powerful tool - try to get people to believe what you want, but if you fail, steer the landing so it just further adds to the confusion, rather than being evidence of dishonesty.

Nice try, Kremlin.

I think given the gravity of the atrocities being committed, and the imminent threat to democracy, things like audits should be a distant secondary concern.

I'm certainly not concerned about the dollars being used to fight Putin because I think the costs of not doing otherwise would far outweigh them.

Maybe because they have multiple party members who have said so.

Yes, it's a minority. However, in that minority are people who spout Kremlin talking points.

Can anyone recommend a paper or book that approaches this from first principles, e.g. are some limitations/abilities due to mathematical structures such as functions (folders), relations (tags), etc?