IMO, needing to clear out an entire table is an indicator that something has gone wrong with your design.
Don't get me wrong, I've definitely done it before, but it's in the same bucket as VACUUM for me... high impact interventions used to fix a mistake I made, not "course of business" actions.
#3 is insane, if for no other reason than the VC is signaling that he’s likely going to try and do the same thing to you some day… even if you were totally willing to screw over your team, why would you ever get involved with that VC given you’ll then have to watch your back until the end of time?
That actually doesn’t seem that toxic. Doesn’t seem like a carcinogen either. Obviously still bad, but at least we’re not talking about something on the tier of phenol or benzene here!
Unfortunately I suspect this idea is somewhat dead-on-arrival… anti-renewable people will fight it for obvious reasons, while environmentalists will fight it due to concerns over shading the waterways.
I quite liked this article.
That said, I think it misses the two big advantages of denormalized (one big table) data -
It’s much easier for people to use, especially non-technical stakeholders who tend to just not understand joins.
It doesn’t require anything from the query optimizer… until you’ve had a complex query randomly go from “runs instantly” to “spins for hours” overnight, you can’t appreciate the value of a simple execution plan.
A bonus benefit is that it scares off the architecture astronauts!
The author really lucked out that the government employee was not actually malicious. I can think of a good few ways she could have made life much more difficult for the author, even if he was likely to ultimately succeed.
Lumen, Nanite, Substrate, Metahumans, and Chaos Physics all come to mind as major innovations driven by Epic. Nanite specifically has pretty much no alternatives. Additionally, the developer UX on UE5 gets better from release to release - for instance, being able to recompile your logic or animations while actively running the game is pretty insane.
One comment I found interesting basically argued that if the billionaires are so scared of over the top wealth taxes, they should be pushing/lobbying for more reasonable wealth taxes as a blocking play, otherwise they can’t really complain if the really disruptive versions get passed.
I don’t think that’s a fair take - his argument is primarily that the ballot measure is fundamentally flawed, and likely put forward in bad faith by a group who’s CEO literally admits to using bad faith/destructive ballot measures to force concessions from counterparties.
Matt Levine has a fairly reasonable take on this:
'[…] if you go to Jump Trading and Jane Street and say “hello, I have an unregulated poorly designed mechanism that could lead to $50 billion of market value collapsing overnight, would you like to trade with me,” they are going to say yes, but their eyes are going to light up, you know? If at Time 0 you give them an extremely gameable system that can produce billions of dollars of profit, at Time 10 your system is going to be a smoking wreckage and they are going to have billions of dollars of profit. That’s their whole job, you know? […] But as a heuristic, I mean, come on. Terra was like “hello we have a balloon full of money, here is a pin, dooooooon’t pop the balloon.” Guess what!'
Prediction markets should be accurate, not fair. If people want to gamble without doing the work of finding some alpha, they should head to a casino, not a prediction market.
Great idea! A tweet providing thoughtful commentary on a competitors ads will surely set the record straight, people always respect CEOs that are willing to publicly talk about touchy topics. Would you like me to draft one for you?
This is completely wrong - the entire point of the Nash equilibrium solution (in the context of poker, at least) is that it is, at worst, EV-neutral even when your opponent has perfect knowledge of your strategy.
Your 72o comment indicates you are either playing with very weak players, or have gotten lucky, as in reasonably competitive games playing (and then full bluffing) 72o will be significantly negative EV. Try grinding that strategy at a public 10/20 table and you will be quickly butchered and sent back to the ATM.
To expand on this - an LLM will try to play (and reason) like a person would, while a solver simply crunches the possibility space for the mathematically optimal move.
It’s similar to how an LLM can sometimes play chess on a reasonably high (but not world-class) level, while Stockfish (the chess solver) can easily crush even the best human player in the world.
Last sentence completely undercuts the other sentiments you shared in your comment… probably best to cut stuff like that out in the future IMHO, even if it’s how you feel.
This doesn’t seem plausible. Leading edge lithography requires you to be at (or beyond) the cutting edge in many realms - even with a breakthrough in one realm, I don’t understand how a startup could expect to catch up to ASML across the board in a few years.
Their website is light on technical details and heavy on nationalistic fluff, which does not lend much confidence.
I don’t think that is a practical framework for situations where people aren’t already very closely aligned.
What happens when a few people are very vocal (and firm) in opposition to basically every change? Having dissenting views is valuable, but not when they have veto power.
Additionally, I think that framework is vulnerable to what I refer to as “death by yes but” - when everyone is just piling on amendments and precursor conditions, oftentimes conflicting, that result in a decision taking months (maybe even years) to make or scuttle.
I’m basing these comments out of experience - one example is a workgroup/committee operating under a similar model that was completely unable to do anything due to decision paralysis. The committee grew significantly more effective when we reformed the decision making process to have a small group of owners to handle pitching and (potentially) implementing the decision, then had approval be a simple yes/no majority vote.
In CO we have automatic traffic cameras, and to my knowledge they just mail you the ticket, which is usually only a fine (and no license points). Its one of those “automatic plea” tickets where if you fight it, you fight (and risk conviction on) the actual offense, while if you just pay the ticket it will automatically get downgraded to a less serious offense (IE parking outside the lines).