amazingamazing

I don't disagree with your point, but over normalization and joining everywhere also isn't necessarily the answer, even with an index. there's no easy answer to this, really depends on the performance characteristics the critical user journeys need.

with a little pain, if I had to pick an extreme, I'd pick extreme normalization with materialized views that are queried (e.g. no joins), rather than joining all of the time.

I get that, but my understanding is that they opened sourced this itself, no?

Not too familiar with Neon other than the basics - its premise is that you use S3 as bottomless storage for Postgres and it’s otherwise the same as standard Postgres right? And this is all open source? Why are people paying? Can’t you use a cloud provider and have them host this for you?

Are you implying that google translate was not useful to anyone prior to chat gpt3?

Hasn’t Google lens been doing that for almost a decade now?

Pay to play is inherently anti competitive though. All cars that speed are fined, not just the “big” ones. It’s also a fact that all companies opening up their data would make things more competitive. Moats are inherently anti competitive.

The solution is for people to make web apps which are agnostic to platform and device, no?

Why not make all companies open up their data sets, and stop pay to play?

At some point someone will reimplement the dynamodb api on top of foundation db. That’ll be nice because then you have an effectively cheap hosted version available then.

You say this as if people aren’t the ones enabling the government.

all these big companies being hypocrites. congress should just pass a law that you can't be big and end the charades.

if it's beneficial then I'd do it myself. why should I be forcing it on others?

private schools were first that's pretty much it.

it would solve themselves. all of the good PIs at the good private schools would go to the good public schools. there's no actual inherent reason why private schools are bad like you're implying.

> This is the government paying for a service.

a service public schools can do.

those also shouldn't - at least without the government getting an equity stake.

they shouldn't.

private schools shouldn't be getting public money. shocking people disagree. yes they do research that benefits the public. so does Meta and Google, who don't get public money. public money should go to public schools.

especially considering that the PIs who do the work in the private school scenario effectively boost the private school's clout with public money, but these private schools do not increase accessibility by opening up admission further.

that said, trump is also doing this for the wrong reasons, sadly.

> You can’t avoid the air you can avoid the public water supply.

You can't though in practice. If you live in urban area for example. It's functionally equivalent. If you say well, I could say gas mask with tank. If you say bottled water, I could say respirator, etc.

the default water people consume comes from the tap. you don't see how it's different? it's not like people buy water of their choice and hook it up to their plumbing.

true

they haven't though. feel free to post a paper showing that fluoride ingestion is good for you. there's no dispute that fluoride contact on the teeth is good.

there are plenty of papers showing that *ingestion* may be bad for you and results in lower IQ. feel free to research.

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/assessments/noncancer/com...

there is not a consensus on fluoride in drinking water. see the intro here (this particular paper concludes fluoride is overall good):

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/711915

This is nothing. Wait until China figures out AI and India finishes taking the Software Engineering jobs.

> This is government action we are discussing right now. The government can't know best when it puts fluoride in the water but it can know best when it bans municipalities from doing so?

I don't agree with the ban. people should be about to vote on this.

> People can choose not to drink flouridated tap water if they want - building a well isn't that expensive, although you will probably need a treatment system because of the naturally occurring stuff (minerals, hydrogen sulphide, possibly excess flouride and other stuff).

that's hilarious because brushing your teeth is more effective, and cheaper than adding fluoride to water. I'm sure people in Manhattan will really get on building those wells.

at the end of the day there's not a single paper that actually says ingesting fluoride is water. they all correlate incidental fluoride contact on the teeth, due to it being in the water.

fact is, brushing your teeth is more effective and has no downsides. ingesting fluoride is bad and is discouraged literally not only by all dentists, but this fact is present on all toothpaste in the usa.

> if everything was a coordinated lie there would be very clear numbers showing problems

that's not how science works though. people in the western hemisphere are becoming more unhealthy, and there is definitely not a consensus that fluoridated water is good. there are plenty of papers showing both conclusions.

at the end of the day though, there's actually no benefit to fluoride ingestion. no paper has shown this. what they do show though, is that when you add it to the water people have better tooth health, because the fluoride touches your teeth. however brushing your teeth is even more effective.

so can I assume that if there was research that breathing some chemically infused mist is good for you, you'd support the government in creating towers to spray this mist across the country? after all in this premise the research says it's good.

that is good to know. fundamentally we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not agree with experimentation with the populace's water supply as a matter of principal. fyi there's already plenty of evidence that supplements are useful for those that are sufficient. of course the main counter argument is that if you're eating a balanced diet supplements are unnecessary (which is true). though that's just about as helpful as saying water fluoridation is unnecessary because you can brush your teeth (which is also true).

> reducing cavities is a net benefit to public health like sanitation departments

what is the connection between reducing cavities and sanitation departments? cavities are not communicable.

Also, the paper you linked is my point. there's no actual benefit of ingestion. the effect is purely incidental. it's more effective to apply fluoride to the teeth. nowhere does it actually explain that drinking it is what is beneficial. the difference in the incidence of caries is because by fluoridating the water it obviously will touch teeth, which has well known positive effects.

the main conclusion of the paper is what everyone should hopefully know already - brush your teeth regularly with fluoride toothpaste.

out of curiosity, would you be OK with vitamins being added to the water? most people are deficient in many.

would you agree with a multivitamin being dissolved and added to the water? why or why not?