talaketu

This points to the dual view of a relation - intensional vs extensional. The beauty of the relational model of data is the morphism: by evaluating relational operations on the extensional model (data) we gain can answer questions corresponding to intensional model (concept).

For example given the extensional data ALBUM(TITLE, ARTIST) corresponding to the intention "the albums, each with a title and artist", we can compute "the eponymous albums, each with a title" via EPONYMOUS_ALBUM = ALBUM where (TITLE = ARTIST)

We started with some data for a relation corresponding with a concept, and were able to operate on the data to produce a new relation - data corresponding to a new concept.

Hierarchical layout demands choices be made, but there are advantages in grouping source packages by language: 1) can naturally reflect object packaging models of target language (eg python, jvm). 2) this can encourage reuse of packages across projects.

A "bog standard small ad network" does not typically have the email address of the ad viewer.

well, source code wasn't used was it?

Anyway, I think "reverse engineering" is a broad category that include disassembly techniques. "Clean room reverse engineering" is a stricter idea.

You are making a distinction between daily use and specialist use and then suggesting it doesn't matter, I suppose because everyone has a daily use.

Day-to-day using miles or inches for distance, gallons for volume, and now we have specialists using miles-per-gallon for fuel efficiency, cubic inches for stroke volume ...

"day-to-day practical measurement" as distinct from what?

Theoretical physicists might be able to skip the units, but the rest of us farmers, engineers, cooks, are doing something practical when we measure.

I'm not really sure what you are arguing.

Nuclear power is very carbon-efficient (tonnes CO2 emmitted / GWh produced) due to the large quantity of energy produced over the generator lifecycle. It's on par with wind power, and better than solar, according to World Nuclear Org.

  | Lignite | 1054 |
  | Coal | 888 |
  | Oil | 733 |
  | Natural Gas | 499 |
  | SolarPV | 85 |
  | Biomass | 45 |
  | Nuclear | 29 |
  | Hydroelectric | 26 |
  | Wind | 26 |

[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/on...

Let me know when this happens - I'll stand in front of it.

wrong. it should take <1 minute to follow the link and read that section.

> (2) Charge a customer a penalty or offer a customer a discount based on the customer's decision to provide or not provide consent under paragraph A.

`dominion` is meant to indicate a custodial and careful and caring role. Man is failing this duty.

> gives us the right to vote.

Not true.

Technologists need to understand that governments do not form policies, legislate and operate in isolation. There is cooperation. Tax and trade treaties are another example.

See [1] for commentary about the international agenda in this case.

[1] https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/disruptors-dis...

That's a ridiculous analysis of anti-nuclear sentiment in Australia. Australia is a democracy and many minor political parties have responded to genuine community concerns that developed since the cold war around non-proliferation, disarmament, testing, nuclear waste management, aboriginal land rights, mining degradation.

The current focus of energy policy is on reducing GHG emissions, reliability and affordability of supply. The installed cost of nuclear power does not make it an attractive option compared to fast installation of solar and wind generation.

that's from theoretically possible to theoretically possible.

"50% easier than theoretically impossible" means it's now 50% possible, doesn't it?

It's the headline, and it's fine. Check the etymology of `hack` and you'll see it's a suitable word for gene editing.

Tweet object from the Twitter API has a "creation_time" that has 1s resolution, whereas the snowflake creation time has 1ms resolution. No doubt these could disagree, but if that happened then maybe both authors could get a prize?

Wonder how it fits with developer terms.

eg. 5d

  Do not use, access or analyze the Twitter API to monitor or measure the availability, performance, functionality, usage statistics or results of Twitter Services or for any other benchmarking or competitive purposes, including without limitation, monitoring or measuring:

      the responsiveness of Twitter Services; or
      aggregate Twitter user metrics such as total number of active users, accounts, total number of Periscope Broadcast views, user engagements or account engagements.

[1] https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/agreement-a...

Can equilibrium not exist in a dynamic system? Think vapor pressure - the particles can agree on temperature but still be trading positions between gas and liquid.

Real database supports real erasure.

That's a very wacky take.

A general privacy principle is that if the user requests the service provider to delete the user's data, then the service provider should comply, unless there are legal injunctions.

It's arguable about user expectation for direct messages on twitter, given there is a sender and receiver and Twitter in the middle, but what is not arguable is that if both users delete the message or their accounts, then the messages should not be retained by the Twitter.

No reason to retain backups beyond the period for which they ensure disaster recovery.

The power of the relational model is that we can use operators to combine relations to form new relations, which are then understood to also encode true propositions. A relational join is a logical implication. This is how SQL is able to answer complex queries with certainty from elementary certain data.

Bayesian networks are able to do similar things from uncertain data.

Null is intended for missing information, not uncertain information. It's common to use vectors to represent a signal.

Relational databases really are based on the set theoretic concepts of relations and functional dependency.

Worth noting that here the use of the word "model" refers not to some indefinite domain-specific data schema, but "The Relational Model" as a paradigm.

It displaced the earlier paradigm of hierarchical data model, which derived more or less from physical media (eg punch cards).

The relational model is not well suited to uncertain data, as a row in a table is generally interpreted as a true proposition. For statistical data sets, analytical processing may be better served by array/tensor models (which also exhibit uniformity).

Very specifically the Australians were given diplomatic immunity, which sidelined the legal question.

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-16/thai-cave-rescue-aust...

There is a bipartisan consensus on security and other matters in Australia. Most policy development in Australia is driven by the unelected agencies and departments that survive their political masters.

There is nothing in the values and philosophies of the ALP such that they would not have legislated this agenda were they in government rather than opposition.

There are so many other examples of this over history, such as the GST, Australia Card, refugee policy, copyright laws.

Put it this way: it was passed into law with bipartisan support by both democratically elected legislative chambers of the Commonwealth of Australia.

All it took to convince the representatives and senators was for a submission from the Australian Federal Police that it was necessary to investigate threats over Christmas.

Thanks for the latin!

I'd only heard reification in the context of data modelling, where it's often meant to model the meta-model.

For example, RDF reification. RFD involves statements in the triple form (subject, predicate, object). The triple (Mary, enrolled, UCSF) corresponds to the statement that "Mary is enrolled at UCSF". A reification might be to turn that statement into a subject, and to make a statement about the statement. Eg. ((Mary, enrolled, USCF), created, 2018-12-06) - the statement that Mary is enrolled at USCF was created on 2018-12-06.

though "what you actually get" in the long run includes superannuation in Australia, but people do not count it as a component of their gross income.