sopooneo

I fully agree all your logic. But then I see a counter of "public sentiment" where I bet most citizens would be outraged by million dollar salaries.

I've heard two side the the Protobuf/streaming idea. On my first introduction, it seemed you could. But later reading leads me to believe it is only almost streamable: https://belkadan.com/blog/2023/12/Protobuf-Is-Almost-Streama....

* I do acknowledge you qualified the question with "better".

> Some see a university education as an example of this: it costs cleverer and more conscientious types less to get a degree than stupider and lazier ones, allowing employers to distinguish between the two.

Wait, how? If two people both have a degree, how does that help distinguish who is stupid?

Could it be kinder, at times, to play to the cultural norm? If people have been raised to say "sir" to their boss, could asking them to do otherwise cause them discomfort without benefit?

I have struggled with this myself, as I don't believe work hierarchy should convey any fundamental difference between people, and we are best off treating each other as equals.

As an American from a region with an atypically dry and reserved culture, the Australia attitude sounds nice.

I was about to say I thought you might be mistaken because you can always use some variant of "group concat" to get sets of fields to show in comma seperated form...

But then I realized even with that, I couldn't get the output under discussion without subqueries. And I don't consider that a win for me.

Agreed completely. Sometimes I've worked hard to put the finishing touches on side projects to make them usable by others and have been pleasantly surprised by the interest. But in most cases, even when I finish, almost no one cares.

And while finishing is an important lesson early on, just so you know how hard that "last 20%" is, it's grueling and not typically very informative or unique after that first couple times.

So I'm now squarely in the camp of do what I want and finish what I want on the side, with no guilt. If I enjoy the journey I call it good. Finishing is for the day job.

Crud I think you're right. I had it in my head that in steady flight, the plane had zero change in momentum, whereas, the air, collectively, gained net downward momentum. So to balance it all out, the earth must be gaining upward momentum (though of course spread over such an enormous mass as to make the velocity term imperceptible.)

You clearly know more about this than me, because I'm currently Googling to understand what "diametrical corners" are. But in a simple implementation, wouldn't the x and y velocities both be reversed at once with a corner hit, both side and top/bottom collisions having been detected "at once" in the same part of the code between updating positions? And then the logo would just bounce out exactly the way it came in?

One other weird thing needed if you want your momentum numbers to balance: every plane in the sky is pulling the earth up towards it ever so slightly.

Honest question: if wing's cross section has a big curve in front, how do determine which point exactly constitutes the "leading edge"?

Exactly. At $500 or $1000 per record, PII starts to look highly radioactive. Companies would be avoiding it's collection with a passion. And those that had to hold it would be compelled to do so less stupidly.

Completely agree on this. A company-killing level of fine, based on number or records exposed, is appropriate. Then the insurance companies would not ensure companies unless they passed stringent audits around best practice and data hygiene.

I would argue that, in practice, they are not completely separate. Too much abstraction makes it hard to tell what the underlying algorithm is. And even if you can figure that out, makes it hard to optimize.

Got it, and that makes sense. Thank you. I couldn't even figure out why I was confused, but then looking at the interface, I think I may have been mixing up the order fields are noted, vs cardinality.

https://ibb.co/gWS558v

Fantastic. I was literally just looking for something like this. I'm using it now.

One thing that may be me getting my brain reversed, but when you set the "cardinality" of a relationship the "1" and "n" markings on the connecting line seem to be reversed?

No dog in this race either way, but what is Michael Lewis meant to have done? Is it just that people feel hist treatment of SBF in Going Infinite was too lenient?

I'm a Docker amateur, so this will be a dumb question, but if you were using that technique after every run line in a DockerFile, wouldn't they be the same every time they're run? Like, it's random, but it's the same random values stored in the file, so wouldn't the lines get cached? Or did you adjust the DockerFile each time?

Or am I completely missunderstanding?

Total aside: but related to ambiguous true/false designation: A lot of times when people write articles like "Ten Myths About NodeJS", it is unclear in each of the numbered items whether the stance initially described is the incorrect myth, or the correct view as proposed by the author. To make it worse, some writers vary the structure between items!

That is my reading too. But why was the multimeter connecting up telemetry? That seems very strange to me.

Just posting this here for anyone like me that had read some of Don Norman's work, but not The Design of Everyday Things, and was confused by a certain differing use of vocabulary.

In his original coining of the term, Normal used "affordance" to mean a thing an object allowed to be done, but some user, usually a human, sometimes another object. For instance, a chair affords sitting by a person. A door handle affords opening.

But in the design world "affordance" is now almost ubuiquitously used to mean some visual hint added to a design element to indicate what can be done with it. For instance, in a UI, you might say that you added an "affordance" in the form of a drop shadow to show a button is clickable (probably a crappy example, me being a non-ui person).

In the later editions of Design of Everyday Things, Norman addresses this difference (perhaps we could say evolution) of his idea and term. If I remember correctly, he does not love this conflation of ideas, but has come to terms with it.

Methods for coming to understanding between parties acting in good faith really fascinates me. One thing I've noticed is the fundamental crux often lies with some assumption each party finds so fundamental that they wouldn't bother to state it, and don't even necessary realize they hold the view *.

As a gross example, my wife told me the other day of a buyer of some CraigsList item that called to say she couldn't find our address. They went back and forth each getting more and more flummoxed by the other's statement of what streets were where. Finally it was discovered that the caller was in Cambridge, Ontario, having misnavigated CraigsList, while we were in Cambridge, MA.

It is mistakes so fundamental as these that are hard to discover. One help I've often found is to bring in a fresh third party.

* Saying to "state your assumptions" seems futile to me. There are too many. The sun will rise, time will continue to tick by at the same rate, your friend didn't change his name yesterday, Coke still sells soft drinks.

This follows a pattern I've noticed where an expert's approach may seem similar to a pure novice's. With only the intermediate practitioner seeming to follow any rules.

I have personally switched my default communication style to the "have you thought about this approach?" style because I found it worked better with most people. Still, for me, I dislike it. Coming from a lot of people, I find it not what they really mean, which puts me on edge.

For all it is rightfully derided, it is this aspect of "user story phrasing" I find valuable. If you can politely ask stakeholders to state their problem in the form "As a _____ I want to _____ so that I can ______", then you can find out that why as filled in on the last blank. And then you can use that why to figure out the best actions to take, being careful that you still scratch the itch the that middle blank in that story brought up.

And to recurse on more level: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/XMLHttpRequ...

My personal inclinations agree with yours, I think. I prefer as much detail as possible up front. Which is why I hate the vagueness of my dashboard's "check engine" light*. However, I bet automakers do that not just so the display is cheaper/simpler, but because most drivers are not interested in anything more detailed (or scary).

* Which for me has almost always just meant some oil change "timer" was up, not even that any meter detected my oil was wearing out.

A fascinating result of how the regulations were written:

“FERC Order 745, issued in 2011, stipulated that demand response providers must be compensated for reducing electricity load at the same rates as if they met that demand with generated electricity.”

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/what-the-supreme-court-deci....

Fully agree. I am annoyed by the educational pendulum swinging so far away from rote memorization that it eliminates it altogether.

In my twenties I decided not to get a motorcycle for this very reason. I realized I would have disappeared for six months, learning every aspect of every part. And there were other things in my life that needed doing.