"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation."
"Moreover, when this non-conceptual, substantial knowledge professes to have sunk the idiosyncrasy of the self in essential being, and to philosophize in a true and holy manner, it hides the truth from itself: by spurning measure and definition, instead of being devoted to God, it merely gives free rein both to the contingency of the content within it, and to its own caprice. Such minds, when they give themselves up to the uncontrolled ferment of the divine substance, imagine that, by drawing a veil over self consciousness and surrendering understanding they become the beloved of God to whom He gives wisdom in sleep; and hence what they in fact receive, and bring to birth in their sleep, is nothing but dreams."
“May Hegel's philosophy of absolute nonsense - three-fourths cash and one-fourth crazy fancies - continue to pass for unfathomable wisdom without anyone suggesting as an appropriate motto for his writings Shakespeare's words: "Such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not," or, as an emblematical vignette, the cuttle-fish with its ink-bag, creating a cloud of darkness around it to prevent people from seeing what it is, with the device: mea caligine tutus. - May each day bring us, as hitherto, new systems adapted for University purposes, entirely made up of words and phrases and in a learned jargon besides, which allows people to talk whole days without saying anything; and may these delights never be disturbed by the Arabian proverb: "I hear the clappering of the mill, but I see no flour." - For all this is in accordance with the age and must have its course.”
you cannot make a language fast, only its underlying implementation (i.e the specific dbms).
and this is the error I see 90% of the time. there is a confusion between conceptual (model) vs implementation concerns.
the problem with SQL the language is its conceptual foundations -- that it is not currently relational and yet it is used as the language of "relational" DBMSes in the market.
"The talks in this series will present ideas on either (1) making SQL go as fast as possible or (2) replacing SQL with something better."
How were you able to infer that the existence of the word "go" in that phrase refers to optimizers?
And 2nd idea/proposal of "replacing SQL with something better" really implies that they are talking about the language and not the optimizer.
In any case, if they really meant "optimizer" then their phrasing is very vague and imprecise; if they are talking about the "optimizer" -- then which specific optimizer? They have failed to mention that too.
Correct. I think the parent commenter is confusing a language's concrete syntax with its abstract syntax. At the end of the day, the ease (or lack there of) of translating an AST into performant executing code is highly correlated with the potential variance of those ASTs.
The more higher-level expressions your languages supports, the more work its compiler (whether targeting physical or virtual hardware) must do to translate those ASTs into "machine" code and the higher the variance of that code during its execution workload.
It's even more work when that language's expressions are declarative instead of imperative.
When a DBMS that claims it is relational and yet it supports SQL's "features" that departs from the relational model, then that DBMS is not relational.
If a DBMS is "slow" or "fast", that is not because of SQL -- it is because of the specific implementation decisions that the makers of that DBMS took.
And that has nothing to do with what you just said.
> If your signup form has an optional field for a full name which I don’t fill in, I still have a name. Just because a value is not known by your database doesn’t mean it isn’t defined.
There's the Closed World Assumption in a database.
Here in the Philippines, filing tax returns are not a problem.
If you're an employee, your employer does it for you.
The employer just deducts the tax owed by each employee, and pays it to the government every quarter.
The total tax amount owed per month may vary from 10k USD (10 to 20 employees) to 20K USD (20 to 50 employees).
But the catch is: If the taxman is corrupt (highly likely), and the officer-in-charge of the remittance of such withheld taxes is also corrupt (not improbable), do not expect that the full tax amount will end up in government's coffers. Both parties will pocket a "small" percentage of it, per quarter, every year.
This scenario is highly likely for offshore companies, where the real owners are outside (e.g. US, Europe) and there's a "trusted" individual (or group of people) that does the "administrative" stuff for the company.
A few years back, I had a co-worker that was hostile to me. I won't go into the details why there's that hostility, but what happened was this:
- In the middle of a (chat) conversation that was going nowhere about a certain issue, he told me that I'm "difficult to talk to."
- I replied, "I can say the same thing to you."
This co-worker then complained to management, that I was being a bully and disrespectful. I provided the chat logs showing that the initial statement ("I'm difficult to talk to") was unprovoked, and I was civil all throughout our chat.
But this experience led me to wonder if there are legal concepts that I could have invoked in my defense.
The article mentions someone punching in the face.
What if this is the scenario: A punches B in the face. B punches A, as retribution. The physical and emotional damage to both parties are equal in nature. But A sues B for assault.
Will the case be dismissed? on what legal grounds? What are the applicable legal principles?
Provocation is a thing, e.g. reducing murder to manslaughter or 2nd / 3rd degree murder if the victim provoked the attacker first somehow.
Self-defense is a thing, it's sometimes reasonable to attack a person before or while they are attacking you.
Retribution is not a legitimate grounds for assault, that's what the justice system is for.
Your example is light on details, but if it's just retribution without an element of provocation / self defense (e.g. B punches A one year after A punches B), then there wouldn't be a reason to dismiss such a case.
As for your conversation, one principle in any organization is to remain polite and professional at all times, even (and especially) when other people are not. If a conversation is "going nowhere", telling the other person that they are "difficult to talk to" could be a legitimate observation or constructive feedback. Management have no interest in analyzing the rights and wrongs of such situations, they only care about who acted professionally, and not about the order and reasons behind such behavior.
"You're difficult to talk to" is not a hostile statement. It's also what you say to someone after they're being difficult, not before. I don't think the reply of "no, you" would be the problem.
And if somebody tells me I'm difficult to talk to (which has happened about particular subjects with particular people), my response is not to look for something to accuse them of so they don't win. I either ask why, or if I know I'm being reasonable, terminate the conversation.
Talking to somebody who is constantly trying to equalize their position with you is fine usually, but trying to criticize, teach, or suggest a different approach to them is impossible. They don't listen, immediately get angry, and try to find something they can criticize about you (even if they don't really mean it.) I think it's a sign of abuse.
Many legal systems allow limited retribution, if it can be seen as proportional to self-defense.
That said, there's an overarching idea that one shouldn't try to "get even" by lowering oneself to the other person's level. Proportionality as a legal concept makes it legal to defend yourself, but illegal to escalate the threat.
E.g. one can use fists against fists, but if B stabs A to death, it will be hard to claim it was in self defense, since there is no obvious proof that A was looking to murder B by punching B to death.
If it is possible to refrain from violence and use the justice system to replace it (by having B press charges against A), then that ought to be a more civil outcome.
One could argue that the reason to have a legal system is so that B does not have to go around preparing to punch back, but can spend her time doing more productive things and that is how we end up with a civil society, with a high level of productivity and freedom of expression, and a minimum level of violence.
Of course, if one person is physically stronger than another, then more tools are required to respond proportionally; tools that may make an accidental over-retaliation more likely.
While society prefers civil solutions to physical conflicts, civil solutions take longer, often require social, organizational and financial capital, and have less certainty in outcome. Society overall is better, but individuals are often not as well served.
The system is stacked in favour of the more powerful at every level, shocker.
I cannot imagine the police taking an interest in a case like that, let alone a DA prosecuting it, absent other factors making it politically important.
Here is the answer for a typical state in the United States.
In a civil suit, a punch in the face typically results in a claim of battery (among other possibilities, such as assault). A battery is an “intentional tort” where a person intentionally causes a harmful or offensive contact with another person.
One defense to an intentional tort like battery is “self defense.” It varies from state to state, but generally a person may use reasonable force to defend against an offensive contact that he or she reasonably believes is about to happen, but the defense must be proportional.
So in your scenario, person A sues B for assault. If person A admits that he was the initial aggressor and the response was reasonable and proportional, the case may well be dismissed. If they do not directly admit it but the facts show they do admit show that the response was proportional as a matter of law, the case will also be dismissed.
If not, the case will continue to summary judgment. If, after discovery, no reasonable juror could find that the response was not reasonable and proportional (i.e., there is no genuine dispute of fact), then the court will find for person B. But if a reasonable juror could find that the response was not reasonable and proportional, the case will continue to trial.
(Both dismissal and summary judgment will only happen if person B moves for relief, but that almost always happens)
Obviously, person A’s attorney is going to know these rules going in, and they are going to do their best to portray the facts in a way that the claim will survive motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and make it to trial.
Once you make it to trial, anything can happen, because it is in the hands of the jurors.
After the jurors render a verdict, the court will review that verdict to determine again if the prevailing party presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find in their favor. The court will also evaluate whether any errors occurred in the trial that warrant a new trial. Then the losing party has an opportunity to appeal those and other rulings of the court.
The legal concept you're describing is "comparative responsibility"[1]:
> [A] doctrine of tort law that compares the fault of each party in a lawsuit for a single injury.
> Comparative responsibility divides the fault among parties by percentages, and then accordingly divides the money awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff may only recover the percentage of the damages he is not at fault for. If a plaintiff is found to be 25% at fault, he can recover only 75% of his damages.
The answer to your hypothetical is, of course, it depends! The "United States" section of the wikipedia article has a good outline of the different ways states implement the doctrine. It boils down to: sometimes it can be a complete bar to recovery if the victim is at all responsible, sometimes there's a threshold level of responsibility where it will bar recovery, and sometimes it's a percentage reduction as described in the example above.
In conceal carry weapon courses in the USA, there's three factors that stand out in a self defense situation. Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Is the person capable of hurting you, can he do it at a given moment, and is he doing it or about to do it? With few exceptions, those who shoot in self defense and abide by these three factors, don't go to prison.
You can watch some Massad Ayoob videos on the topic, though they are pretty old.
I would not seen "difficult to talk to" as punch or uncivil, at least not in general case. Specifically in the context of conversation that goes nowhere. It is (slight) criticism and simultaneously it is opening meta discussion about "why is this conversation failing". But criticism is allowed in polite company.
No A could sue B for whatever damages they sustained, but also B could turn around and sue A. If their damages were exactly the same then they would both end up in the same position they were originally, minus lawyer fees, so there isn't much motivation for either of them to do this.
Countless times I've heard or read this somewhere.
Quite untrue with my experiences. Who exactly is the "manager"? the "company"?
In my experience, most of my reports left because of low pay. I as their "manager" agreed that they receive an raise which is justifiable due to their output and our team's growth.
But the "company" is against it. In particular the CFO. Is the CFO the "manager" then?
In any case, a statement like that is almost always misleading.
The article is Ok though. I just wished that statement was not there.
That being said, if everybody's leaving for money, that's a sign that you might want to look elsewhere too. You could even call up the people who you tried to get raises for when you're ready to hire.
