>>3120532 (LB)

>I thought that delta's worked like this:

>Q posts.

>DJT posts.

>Delta achieved.

>DJT: "AMERICA IS WINNING AGAIN! https://t.co/6HcBjLAAQB"

>2018-09-21T04:05:52Z

>Q: #2245 / PF276:

>2018-09-21T04:06:09Z

Q posted 17sec AFTER DJT - not before, right?

OK so really not trying to slide. Still trusting the plan. IMO, this was simply a mistake unless I don't understand Deltas.

It's also considered a delta if DJT/Q post within 60 seconds of each other - no matter WHO posts first? Help me out anons.

>>3120739

That's what I thought. So this [0] is a mistake?

>>3118306 rt >>3118079

>>3120742

But how can you account for that? I'm clam. Just trying to understand what's going on.

>>3120828

>>3120847

So then does that still make it a valid delta? What I'm saying is: If network lag causes Q to drop AFTER POTUS, that's still a valid delta?

If you as a software professional were to write a program to calculate deltas between Q/POTUS. How do YOU account for this latency issue?

A softwareprofessionalfag here.

>>3120908

It's not that part I have a problem with. It's Q posting AFTER DJT and it STILL being considered a delta.

>>3120991

FFS I get it.

Lets say you were an autistic software professional that had spent the last 9 months creating a scraper site that archived Q posts and also calculated deltas.

You wake up and notice that Q RT's a delta and you wonder why YOUR site didn't pick it up. You begin to look into why that is because you are after all autistic. You find that DJT posted BEFORE Q and inquire if the rules that determine if a delta have changed.

All you want to do is make sure that YOUR site is operating correctly.

You meet resistance.

Now what?

>>3121097

Thanks a big help. Thanks.

>>3121122

Meh. That seems more like fixing the symptom than the problem.

Whatever. Clearly nobody cares. I'll do something else.

>>3121354

HA!