tzmudzin

[OK, I'm going back to my cave now...]

With all due respect: KISS.

It's not a binary choice between life as normal and total shutdown. The whole discussion is about reducing non-essentials to slow down the spread, so the health system can cope with the demand spread over time.

> 2. You can't maintain quarantine for more than a month or two, after which your epidemic simply re-starts, and you don't get to re-impose the quarantine then because the first quarantine "failed".

Again, not a binary situation. Given the degree of individualism and freedom, that's unlikely to work anyway.

> 3. Vaccine is over a year out in the best case, assuming it works at all.

Agreed

> If it's anything like the flu vaccine, chances of it working reliably on mutated strains are approximately nil.

While this is likely -- I'm not an expert, so I'd rather refrain from such categorical statements.

> 4. Younger people tolerate the disease much better, and if they build up immunity to it while the senior population self-isolates, the overall number of deaths could be minimized.

False dichotomy -- younger people can still be better protected by reducing non-essential contacts.

> 5. Due to how widespread and virulent this is, it will just become the "new flu", and it will come back with mutations every year. We can't do what we're doing now every year, at least not if the goal is to minimize deaths.

That's right, but counting primarily on herd immunity while neglecting other measures does NOT minimize deaths.

Not a lawyer either, but "I came up with this myself" is the standard defense of the artists, with mixed success.

- database restore - database migration (your case) - data migration to a different platform and presumably different data model (the bank‘s case, or my answer here)

Not sure which case the question was reffering to, though...

The trick is not in the application of highly complex SQL. The trick is in the PROCESS — making it robust, testable, traceable, and reversible for every object despite the complex dependencies. And then indeed validating every step went well, with the validation depth depending on the objects criticality (OK return code vs check of record counts vs check of totals on fields vs check of totals per category etc)

If you‘re really into it, consider the use of automation and tracing IDs for individual loads.

If you‘re worried about the time it takes despite automation: work on the bulk of the data, but use DB triggers to record delta from your snapshot, then treat that „sidecar“ accordingly.

Then: do at least one end-to-end test.

Learn from the mistakes at every single stage, and act on what you‘ve learned.

Your DNA tells a lot more about you than the driver's licence.

Think about the next step: this time it's the police submitting false profiles. Next time it's your insurance agent checking for hereditary preconditions you may not even be aware about. Or your bank trying to assess if you'll live beyond 50 before they grant you the mortgage.

Without a proper regulatory framework all of that can happen without your knowledge and without your consent.

Does this not change the goalposts in privacy?

And if a personal perspective does not suffice -- you don't want to breed copycats.

I don't know if it's your neighbor's recording of your morning fun in the shower, or if it's someone ridiculing a your genuine tragedy.

Black-and-white solutions don't work in the real world.

Definitely one of my favorite reads from my youth days...

I really recommend "The Economist Style Guide". Please read through it, then read again to see how it was applied to itself (!). Then write a short passage, and revise it to adhere to the recommendations -- don't be surprised if this will need several passes though!

You will be surprised how much this can improve your writing, but also structure your own thoughts.

Don't do this. Follow "The Economist Style Guide" instead:

"Clarity of writing usually follows clarity of thought. So think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible."

(I'm leaving it up to you to decide if it's a short-term correction, beginning of bear streak or anything else)

Why would you exclude safety-relevant systems, e.g. in the autonomous driving / autonomous flying / industrial control space?

"It is extraordinary that Bulgakov managed to write a novel that is so full of humor and wit and lightness of tone when he was living through this period", writes Groskop. I guess she missed the point.

...and someone forgot to adapt the rhethoric.

https://www.amazon.de/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Pol...

[Sure it's not going to fly given Intel's market position, but it's a tempting thought anyway...]

I paid for my lock, but I did not fortify my home. That would be unreasonable, because the society I live in discourages theft, codified it in some rules and actively enforces them, to discourage the unwanted behaviors. And yes, I pay for this through my taxes. I believe I get value for money.

In a similar fashion I expect privacy intrusion to be frowned upon and policed. Surely I have better to do than filing GDPR lawsuits -- or searching for the latest privacy glasses. But I don't want to spend my time searching for such gadgets just because someone on the Internet thinks they're fine.

I don't want the privacy glasses in the very same way I don't want a fortress for a home. I hope you understand.

Privacy is a human right. We should punish the offenders, not the subjects.

> 2,297 - 92% - were found to be "false positives".

... so we have 173 true positives, but 450 people were arrested.

I guess the 277 wrongfully arrested ones may have an opinion different from yours.