The author had no specific expectations. The author received a report of an error, investigated, found that MySQL's TIME did not match EF Core's expectations for a timespan (hence causing the error):

> for a brief moment I assumed the incorrection in this value was the hundreds of hours, as one could reasonably assume that maybe TIME values were capped at 24 hours, or that a different syntax was needed for values spanning multiple days

And then it turned out that wasn't the case and they basically got nerd-sniped by the issue into finding out why the type had such weird bounds.

> I prefer PostgreSQL for reasons that will soon become self-evident

This outlines his expectations, and his biases, quite clearly. Also see: the title of the article.

I don't think there were any biases here. The research into the docs came first, and the title seems like the conclusion rather than the hypothesis.

Besides, I don't use databases all that much and I don't write blog posts either, but if I did, and I came across this issue, this might be the exact article I would write (except the liking Postgres thing).

> This outlines his expectations, and his biases

No, it does not. What it does is explain why they are admittedly "not too experienced with MySQL" and didn't straight remember that obviously the range of MySQL's TIME type is '-838:59:59' to '838:59:59' so 960 would be out of range.

Also please don't staple dicks onto people, the author's gender is irrelevant to the article and it's very disturbing.

> Also see: the title of the article.

The title of the article, and the introduction you're quoting, follow from the article itself. Unless you're calling the author a liar and think they made up the entire thing just to bash mysql.

That the author ultimately considers the behaviour of MySQL's TIME type and its bounds "a WTF"… is entirely defensible.