> This article doesn’t present much motivation for why you would do this.
For those working with databases, it's easy to come up with a bunch of reasons. ORM is a necessary evil when working with RDBMS, as are things like schema migrations that can easily result in loss of data (I.e., dropping columns or tables).
What if all we need is dumping a big old JSON in a container?
This idea is very enticing. The scale of this whole NoSQL thing is pretty telling.
The blog presents a thought provoking question: what if we don't actually need a full-blown database, and instead we only care about things like unique constraints, transactions, indices, and history tables.
> ORM is a necessary evil when working with RDBMS, as are things like schema migrations that can easily result in loss of data (I.e., dropping columns or tables).
Hmm, neither of those been necessary for me. ORMs is a choice, you can choose not to and still have a proper design and architecture and not suffer from that choice. Requires you have programmers who know how to use SQL, which seems less and less common as the days go by though, so understandable most reach for an ORM.
Schema migrations that can "easily result" in data loss is even easier to avoid though. Don't drop the column/table in the same step you copy data to the new place, or do the migration via application code which gets cleaned up later, to catch most of the stuff before one bigger copy, and then the eventually DB cleanup.
Guess it depends on how careful you want to be, or how careful your agent lets you be, I guess. But it's definitely possible to avoid both of those "necessary evil", which I guess makes them just "evil".
> The blog presents a thought provoking question: what if we don't actually need a full-blown database, and instead we only care about things like unique constraints, transactions, indices, and history tables.
This sound like: what if we dont actually need a table and instead we only care about four legs and a wooden plate.
That's the problem. Hitting a tied up animal until it breaks is clearly a violent affair, similar how hanging puppets in nooses or putting a doll in a guillotine.
I'm sure that there are kids growing up in places where bullfights are common thinking that torturing and killing a bull in a party-like atmosphere is fine.
I mean yeah, absolutely. But a child growing up in a western society is unlikely to encounter either of those. But generally I do see Pokemon as violent and I wouldn't let my 5 year old watch it quite yet. When he's a bit older I hope he enjoys playing through the original games and the OG tv show with me, but I see parents playing the TV show for their 4-5 year olds and I think that's just too young. Same with Spidey and friends and few other shows made "for children" which absolutely promote violence despite the colourful aesthetic.
Not necessarily, in C++ you'd still drop from smart pointers to raw pointers, from virtual dispatch to switches/computed gotos, from std::function to function pointers and so on. These abstractions all come at a cost.
> "Making money" is the incentive system of society. Technology has now aligned society's incentive systems to promote climate action.
This personal belief is grounded on an assumption that all mankind follows a neoliberal or even libertarian economic model.
Back to reality, west Europe is firmly a social democracy where states impose behavior through law, regulation, and policy, which is topped by a federal system that coordinates policies. Countries such as China are totalitarian with a centrally managed economy that's guided by N-year strategic plans.
My supposed "personal belief" is not normative it is descriptive.
Misconstruing this as normative, and attributing it to a political belief, is your cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile where actual climate action is coming from.
We must understand the world as it is, if we are to effectively change it to a better state.
> My supposed "personal belief" is not normative it is descriptive.
No, it is a expression of your personal and unsupported beliefs. Asserting that the whole world enforces a libertarian economical system is simply out of touch with reality. I mean, China alone is a totalitarian regimes that still manages it's economy through central planning.
> Back to reality, west Europe is firmly a social democracy where states impose behavior through law, regulation, and policy, which is topped by a federal system that coordinates policies.
And yet, air travel continues to grow (after a small hiatus due to COVID) and state and EU money will be dumped into a new airport near me, to support more than doubling current capacity, much further away from the city (adding tens of millions of car trips to and from the airport).
I'm simply the looney for not taking the kids on low cost European city escapes.
It starts from the “bottom”: people will talk about it, but will pretty much continue to do whatever the fuck they can afford to do. And Europeans, like Americans, can simply afford to much, while harping about what will happen to the world once the BRICS can afford the same.
Seriously, we have the US threatening to sanction (and has) politicians and judges that want to regulate US technology companies. The idea that neoliberalism doesn't have a massive influence on the world is straight up delusional.
Did we forget that EU took an austerity approach following 2008 and all that did was immiserate their population enough where they are voting for fascist/nationalist political parties?
Yes, although I wouldn’t blame the US solely, London also carries a fair amount of responsibility for it. Perhaps not as much as the US, but Thatcherism was certainly the Trojan horse for European entry of neoliberalism in the 1980s.
> This personal belief is grounded on an assumption that all mankind follows a neoliberal or even libertarian economic model.
This personal belief is usually coupled to people who have become wealthy following this belief. So it tracks that they would declare any solution that doesn't allow them to continue their plundering impossible.
> China is pursuing the strategy you're describing, but there's a reason they're also building nuclear, they're increasing LNG infrastructure, they haven't phased out coal, and they've built a huge amount of oil storage.
This opinion is rather simplistic. China is reported to have 60% of it's energy needs already supplied by renewable sources, but this transition creates different types of challenges such as preserving the power grid's inertia. Otherwise you might see yourself in a scenario such as the Spanish blackout. This means having in place strategies for fast response (gas) and baseline (hydro storage, nuclear) to prevent the scenario.
> batteries are the fastest response power. gas is high maintenance, & bad capex as an intermittent source.
Batteries have a limited capacity and have a higher investment cost. Gas is the standard option for fast response. Pumped-storage hydro has by far the highest capex and has a heavy environment impact.
It's baffling how people show up in this sort of discussions arguing that standard tried-and-true strategies somehow don't work. Quite odd.
Batteries and solar have been beating lifetime cost of fast response gas turbines for five years or more. Now with uncontrolled fossil fuel cost spikes the operating costs of gas are highly variable compared to the pretty much flat investment and operating cost on battery + solar. if one were comparing battery plus renewables for full seasonal offsets are tighter, but the costs are so much lower, you can provision more and plan to dump power in the summer (or maybe not as this last long hot fossil fueled climate change summer will drive new demand for a/c)
> So if the USA declares "ownership be damned", it would be a net win for the USA.
This opinion is very naive. The moment the US declares "ownership be damned", the US dolar stops being the currency used in things like the oil market and it's value tanks. The world will scramble to use an alternative currency, which will end up being either the euro or the yuan. This effectively marks the end of US as a world power.
> Or Bitcoin. Of which almost half is already under US control.
This sort of opinion is laughably out of touch. Listen to yourself: oil markets will move away from the US dolar due to how the US governments destroying its value, and instead will move to bitcoin because... The US controls it?
Are you aware you are posting these outlandish opinions on how the world trusts the US with it's currency in a discussion where literally European countries are pulling their gold reserves out of the US because they no longer trust the US?
> I can call a coworker right now and have a real time conversation with them without feeling like I’m talking to a frustrating machine.
These machines were designed with the express purpose of being condescendingly sycophant to the point they hallucinate just to state "you are absolutely right".
No wonder some people even find these chatbots to be wife material.
And it disagrees with me a lot, granted this is in the webchat which I don't use for programming but for general usage seems to work, it isn't sycophantic
I don't have those system prompts, but gemini pushes back on its own quite a bit. It'll tell me when I wrong, or when there are better options to consider. They won't be exhaustive, but good enough for 95% of my queries, so it's also my go-to web chat.
> The fun thing about C++ is that it’s really hard.
C++ definitely has a higher cognitive load than your average interpreted language. However, a big part of that cognitive load is due to support for highly optimized scenarios such as return value optimization. Most people write code that doesn't require it at all, and that's perfectly fine. The same goes for move semantics. You can spend a whole career writing code where all your classes do deep copies when passing objects by value. The compiler even graciously helps you not have to write all constructors and assignment operators to have your POCO class work out of the box. But once you feel the need to avoid those copies then you need to know what to do to nudge the compiler do that for you. That is a while subtle dance. That's when the cognitive load starts growing.
The hardest part of C++ are it's lifetime rules, which are in fact extremely difficult to grasp. There's essentially a unique(ish) ruleset for each class of object and misinterpreting one of them (no matter how obscure) can easily cause UB.
For those working with databases, it's easy to come up with a bunch of reasons. ORM is a necessary evil when working with RDBMS, as are things like schema migrations that can easily result in loss of data (I.e., dropping columns or tables).
What if all we need is dumping a big old JSON in a container?
This idea is very enticing. The scale of this whole NoSQL thing is pretty telling.
The blog presents a thought provoking question: what if we don't actually need a full-blown database, and instead we only care about things like unique constraints, transactions, indices, and history tables.
What if we only need a subset of those?
reply