tempguy9999

I'd guess it's a convention of that society, and means no more than our (peculiar, in my view) manner of the writing of some letters starting "Dear Sir" and ending "I remain faithfully yours ...", or similar words.

I think this may be a register (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%2...)

I've seen these pics before and have noted that, given tusks are teeth and have a large amount of phosphorus in them, surely these buried tusks must have extracted then locked up an enormous amount of bio-available phosphorus which must(?) have seriously limited that plant nutrient.

Any thoughts from biologists?

His point was soil thawing, not the timespan of mammoths.

Have an ironic upvote.

IDK but do a search with https://www.gmbmg.com/ and check the URL it uses. It may be a useful trick.

True. And you can address it yourself by blocking JS mainly, and ads, and be amazed at how snappily a web page renders (when it does, which is often but not always sans JS).

> in some socio-economic sense, that I can't quite put my finger on.

Maybe I can - they're asking for the moon, and a pony?

I see job ads that as for advanced mssql with SSIS/SSRS/SSAS data analysis, good c# and/or python, some web framework, powershell, some visualisation tools, some no-sql db experience[0] and often big data frameworks (hadoop, spark) on top ("and some knowledge of statistics and data analysis would be helpful!"). And OO, and FP. And they often ask for domain knowledge on top.

(edit: and I forgot, they often want data warehousing as well).

I think some of these are just added by clueless HR drones to pad job ads out (some of HR really are clueless).

[0] why ask for SQL & no-sql?

I searched for something arbitrary (the word "omnipotent") and it came back in about 2 seconds. What are you getting?

I'd not intended to suggest it was a problem, only that it was perhaps related to the inability to get into the flow. Merely an observation.

Parasite the korean film?

You've not justified this. I'd be very interested in understanding why you make this claim.

I agree, I've heard of 'the flow' but it's never happened to me.

Perhaps related, perhaps not, I never 'sink in' to films I'm watching. My old GF seemed to be able to, but I'm always on the outside looking in, never immersed. I wonder if that's linked.

I think it's for other reasons (and grouping on expressions is quite reasonable anyway).

It's (IIRC!) something to do with the situation of

  select x + y as x 
  from ...
  group by x

which x are we talking about? (Logically that example is crap because only the alias x makes sense, but something like that anyway).

Interesting. It doesn't work in MSSQL, and I understand that's correct (ie. isn't allowed) per the standard.

I don't deny your right to challenge, but tight now I can't give an example. I've just gone through months of my posts looking for one particular post that might clarify but I can't find it. Not being able to search your own comments is frustrating. I'll have a muse overnight.

sorry!

Found it (thanks google): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20591621 Simplicity was staring me in the face, it took weeks to find it.

> Simpler is easier than complex, right?

Well, no. Complexity has an obvious price but simplicity does too. You have to work for simplicity, even fight for it. Think of code; it just somehow becomes more complex. You have to work to pare it back to what's needed.

I can't think ATM of better examples (and you deserve some), but no, simplicity does not come easy.

A nice phrase I came across: "elegance is refusal".

Not really. Most is pretty well standard SQL (CTE optimisation fence pre PG12 being one exception, and there are a couple more, but really it's mostly standard stuff).

I always, always forgot what column aliases I can use where. Thanks for the reminder.

This is a pretty trivial list. Useful for beginners I guess.

I seriously take issue with "Reference Column Position in GROUP BY and ORDER BY" though. If it is restricted to ad-hoc (AKA messing-about) queries I'd be fine with it, but it won't be. Just don't do it.

Years ago Lomborg and scientific american had a major clash. There was quite a lot to it, here's a summary (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-response-to-lom...)

"Selective citations of the literature allow Lomborg to make statements that are correct but unrepresentative of the best, full state of environmental scientific knowledge"

"Yet his [lomborg's] critics are rarely attacking the facts in his citations per se; they fault what Lomborg does with them and, of course, his neglect of more relevant citations elsewhere."

Anyway, that's SA's side. Follow the link to find more. Caveats: this was years ago, and the quotes above are my selection, which you may consider one-sided.

I'm curious; could you explain/link to some explanation of Eric Naggum's views that showed why he disliked the web. Thanks.

Every single previous discussion will cover this, pros and cons. Look in HN prior posts for your answer.

The former.

"are"? Yes, perhaps.

"were"? I don't know.

I subcontracted to a guy who was sold on the eiffel hype. I got an installed it to. I managed to crash the compiler in the first few minutes of use. The other guy ended up entirely distrusting the incremental compilation after losing a day or so to that.

I don't remember any particular tooling, and the language was crap (Meyer was better at hype than language/compiler design).

IIRC sather was eiffel with the subtyping holes fixed. Bertrand Meyer allowed holes in eiffel subtyping (which sather disallowed) which he (meyer) was sure he could deal with, but eventually they proved intractable IIRC.

My boss eventually abandoned eiffel, and let the eiffel company know why. It was not an enjoyable experience for either me nor him.

Companies absolutely hate bad publicity. Also, what have you got to lose at this point. Good luck.

Java was dire. It could have been much better when released - though granted it was designed for embedded originally, but it was then arguably mis-sold.

Performance was avoidably bad in some parts of the libraries.

I recall a major rewrite of some product being started then killed because performance sucked (surely much better now, but things took far too long to change).

Memory behaviour was not fixed until java 5:

"The original Java memory model, developed in 1995, was widely perceived as broken, preventing many runtime optimizations and not providing strong enough guarantees for code safety"

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_memory_model)

I'd also like to add Brinch Hansen's heartfelt lament

"If programmers no longer see the need for interference control [in java's threading] then I have apparently wasted my most creative years developing rigorous concepts which have now been compromised or abandoned by programmers"

Per Brinch Hansen, Java's Insecure Parallelism - SIGPLAN Notices, April 1999

> statically typed

with type holes for arrays

> with much simpler semantics

yep, too simple. IMO it relied too much on the programmer. Generics took too long to appear also.

> Unicode support

Broken cos they didn't read the spec properly. It has problem with the BOM on UTF8 which has bitten me (can't remember the details, think it was this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1835430/byte-order-mark-...)

The advertising budget was what drove things, not common sense. Java could have been good but it was designed badly and badly oversold.

That's the way I (try to) think, sort of, but honestly the successful projects are the ones with money behind them. Java was just terrible but IIRC Sun put in approx. $0.5 billion into advertising it and it was jumped all over by execs because of advertising and not any technical, or far more importantly business, merit.

Tech is fad driven - look at all the big data projects by companies that don't need them.

It's the bit that sounds like cashhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Soutions: a) youtubers can collectivise b) expensive law firms pick it up with the resouces to win (bob gets nothing but knows MegaCorp gets stung) c) use bad publicity - MegaCorps hate bad publicity d) rich people pretend to be bob, get sued, unleash lawyers on MegaCorp and make lots of money, so MegaCorps get very wary of the 'little' people.

Is that a criticism? Because if it wasn't the tone of your last line I'd take it as a compliment to the site. What would the value being non-hyper-functionalist, or to ignore access needs of some people? Are you trolling?