ilitirit

Yeah, I basically used pg_trgm to completely replace an old, non-supported version of ElasticSearch at a previous company. We basically needed to match on similar team names (e.g. Bayern München vs Bayern Munich as a simple example) and it turns out Postgres could handle all the matching requirements with ease.

There's another issue - sometimes people choose to migrate to microservices because the monolith "can't be scaled" or "is too slow" or whatever. Where often the case is just that the monolith was written poorly. But the team doesn't realise this and they and up copying the same poor design and technical processes that lead to the initial problems to the microservice refactor. Now they have the same problems with potentially higher complexity.

A problem I've seen on the project I'm working on is that the team seems to want to do conflate orthogonal issues from a design and technical perspective. "We're going to microservices because the monolith is slow and horrible. We're going to use CQRS to alleviate pressure on the repositories. We're going to use Event Sourcing because it works nicely with CQRS."

Question: "Why are we Event Sourcing this simple CRUD process?"

Answer: "Because we are moving from the Monolith to Microservices".

> The darling of those who wish to explain why incompetent people don’t know they’re unskilled, the Dunning-Kruger effect may actually just be a data artefact.

This doesn't strike me as true. Or rather, I don't think that it's a significant observation that some people may want to try to explain why some people are incompetent. In my experience, people don't try to "explain" incompetence in general. They will rather talk about specifics - e.g. "Some people believe this because of the misconception that X implies Y". Even if their own rationale is incorrect.

This is very different to saying that "They are stupid because they don't know that they are stupid".

Yeah it may come up as a flippant comment about an individual (or "fringe" group like the Flat Earth Society) in casual conversation, but when I consider how much I've read about and discussed the DK effect, I can't say that the implications as stated in that the quoted piece actually has a significant basis in reality. In other words, DK may be the "darling" of said group, but the self-same group is not very significant in any way in my experience.

YMMV.

This is misleading in some ways. Even people who are not overweight "lose weight" through exhaling and sweat/urination. It's not really an "interesting" concept. I think the more interesting discussion is around how many people still believe that exercise is a better way to lose weight than simply eating less. Basically, the perspective is entirely wrong. It's not about "losing weight", it's about not putting into your body in the first place.

A simplification of a tangential - did you ever hear that when you first start your lifestyle change (diet/exercise) that it's very easy to lose weight at the start because you're "losing water"? Well, now you know where that water comes from.

edit: I should just also say that another interesting discussion is around the best ways to get people to eat less. And part of that involves lots of interesting (at least to me) biochemistry.

This has been a pain point for me in the past, but I guess it's just part of how the ecosystem works.

I would personally rewrite the article as "Too many ways to start an Xserver"

Does anyone know if the browser integration is similar to/better than Lastpass or Bitwarden? Does it even have browser integration?

I've always just used github as a source control repo. It's also useful that Google links open source projects when I search for things.

If the trending page disappeared today I wouldn't notice. In fact, the only time I ever read about it is when I stumble across blog posts that mention it.

I actually am quite familiar with suckless tools and I do consider myself an advanced user, so I'm probably part of their target market as well. But to be honest, from a pragmatic point of view I just don't see how configuration through code is better/worse than configuration through dot/json/ini files in the average "suckless" use-case. Why must this even be something that I care about?

If it's a case of their software being simpler to understand so which makes it easier to fix bugs, then sure, I get that. But in my experience, software that has been around forever just tends to have fewer bugs in general so it's also just something else that I simply don't need to care about. And how often does the average user of suckless tools actually have to fix bugs in the programs? If it's more than once, then does the label "suck less" even qualify?

Is it just because the software is extremely minimal and therefore less "bloated"? I get that too, but personally, why would I care if a piece of software is 70kb or 500kb in this age? YMMV.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to bash suckless or any other community here. I'm just very pragmatic about the tools that I use and my workflow. If you're the type of person that likes to tinker and customize every aspect from the ground up, sure then maybe suckless tools are for you. Tinker and mod away, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

> If you take a Sunday afternoon to study the code, you will very likely understand how every piece of the software works, at which point you will be in a position to fix anything you might find. You might even end up forking it and implementing your own window manager (AwesomeWM was originally forked from Dwm).

I don't think I have ever needed to do this "fix" any piece of configuration in any software.

While I understand the concept and approach, I don't think that this is a productive use of most people's time.

So a more more accurate description seems to be "there is no evidence that thinking of the viruses in terms of multiple strains is scientifically helpful".

The immediate question that springs to mind is why the US Navy with all its sophisticated technologies were not able to identify these as known aircraft or balloons.

If they could identify these objects, why lie?

If they could not and these are in fact explainable as known craft/balloons, doesn't that imply a serious security risk?

Sorry, can't edit the original post any more, but it turns out this is quite simple.

1. Start a WSL terminal

2. https://x410.dev/cookbook/wsl/setting-up-wsl-for-linux-gui-a...

3. Start X410 in floating mode

4. sudo apt update

5. sudo apt install i3

6. i3

Does anyone have a guide to getting i3 to work using this?

> I currently get the distinct impression that polymer-digesting microbes are not currently considered dangerous, with the current impacts being negligible.

Well, you've just answered it. I would like to know the scientific rationale for this or an opposing belief. I currently have no opinion on the matter because I haven't read any material to think about in any way other than "these things exist".

I'm not referring to this article - I'm referring to the general case of plastic-eating microbes. Plastic eating organisms are not new. Even certain types of mealworms will eat styrofoam...

Articles like these are published several times a year, but I don't think I've seen any studies on the potential impact.

This article mentions it, but there are no accompanying references.

http://theconversation.com/how-plastic-eating-bacteria-actua...

Have there been studies about the dangers of these types of microbes spreading out into the "wild"?

> Mozilla lost the browser wars

Honest question... who did they lose to? Google Chrome?

For me personally, Firefox has been better than Chrome for several years now. The only reason I still load up Chrome is when I want to stream to my Chromecast.

I don't know a lot about the background of this project or the region. Why has it taken this long for a tunnel to be built in LV? Was/is it not considered necessary?

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread it sounds as if what you're asking is related to the anthropic principle. Maybe it would be more appropriate to argue that "the set of physical laws that arise from the known fundamental constants are inevitable".

But this itself is not strictly logical because changing the fundamental constants doesn't imply a change of the fundamental laws. The fundamental laws may very well work fine with different constants but we may just not be there to observe them in action because the outcomes may not result in a universe conducive to life (hence: anthropic principle).

As a bad analogy, physics affects an egg falling to the surface of a planet in low gravity in the same way as an egg falling in high gravity. The outcomes may be different, but the laws are the same. And of course, in the latter case it's less likely for something to survive the fall and live to even ask these questions in the first place.

There are some interesting possibilities that arise at this point. e.g. What if this Universe is only "somewhat" tuned for intelligent life? What if, on some more "appropriate" level of "tuning", more stable, fundamental particles are observable for longer periods of time yielding even more insight into the fundamental laws of the universe?

Lots of interesting stuff to talk about around a camp fire...

I used this to replace an aging ElasticSearch implementation our company was using. Simple and fast, and 1 less piece of tech in the stack to maintain. Postgres really is a brilliant piece of software. Yeah I know paid solutions which arguably work better exist, but for a "free" product Postgres does astoundingly well in many areas.

You could say the same for improperly porting commit messages when switching version control systems.

This really just depends on your team/company/culture.

Lengthy commit messages are not really required if you have associated tickets in a bug-tracking or project-management system. More often than not, you'll just be duplicating info.

Our had sophisticated mathematical models written for our industry. These were developed in the late 90's/early 2000's. When they tried to port these models to "a more modern format" to programming language code, they realised that it was far more complex than they had anticipated, and even small mistakes would be disastrous for the company.

Their solution? Dozens of virtual servers around the world, each one hosting a copy of Excel with a 20-30MB workbook, communicating with the outside world via TCP/IP and COM interface code.

I don't disagree with the obviously true statement, but this code comment comes to mind:

    // Dear maintainer:
    // 
    // Once you are done trying to 'optimize' this routine,
    // and have realized what a terrible mistake that was,
    // please increment the following counter as a warning
    // to the next guy:
    // 
    // total_hours_wasted_here = 42

I feel many people are overlooking the most important bit:

> He ended with a Spanish question that was evidently made popular in a US advertisement: "¿Por qué no los dos?", which means "Why not both?". Inheritance and composition are both useful tools; developers should understand when to use each.

There was another paper updated shortly afterwards (first published in Jan 2019) here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01540

It puts the value of H0 at 75.2+-(39.5;32.4) using standard sirens.

Researchers expect a 2% measurement using this technique in 5 years.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328344162_A_two_per...

See the section on Lambdas:

http://manifold.systems/docs.html#checked-exception-suppress...

The numbers are indeed out of date. I re-ran the tests for some of the C and Nim programs using Nim 0.19.4 and gcc 7.3.0 on Windows 10. Here are the results:

  crb-omp      0m22.949s
  crb          0m23.240s
  crb_opt      0m31.404s

  nimrb_pmap   0m8.828s
  nimrb_fn     0m22.988s
  nimrb        0m26.556s

The base C code is faster than base Nim code. The optimised C code is significantly slower than everything else(!?). The Nim program that uses a threadpool is the fastest of these.

I couldn't get the CPP versions to compile. I'll do the Rust programs some other time.

Interesting that Nim is slightly faster than C it considering that it compiles down to C.

Yes, and that only works by changing how scoping works. Unless of course you don't care about the variables created inside.

i.e.

    public void DoThing()
    {
       var someVar = SomeStaticClass.FooFunc();
       someVar.DoSomething();
    } 
    catch (Exception x)
    {
       // Scoping rules will need to change
       // to put someVar in scope:
       _logger.Log($"{someVar.GetId()} is invalid");
    } 
    finally 
    {
       someVar.Cleanup();
    }

And this also implies that there's no way to make a variable declared inside the method inaccessible to the catch block without additional changes to the language.