I think that if SQLite would suddenly have to add a bunch of new features, the discussion about rewriting it would be very relevant.
I think we like to fool ourselves that decisions like these are based on performance considerations or maintainability or whatever, but in reality they would be based on time to market and skill availability in the areas where the team is being built.
At the end of the day, SQLite is not being rewritten because the cost of doing so is not justifiable
Remember when the FCC botted their own comment page in order to make it look like the public was split and ultimately against a policy change that the public is clearly in favor of?
Funny how they only did that under President Trump, but Biden's FCC never did that.
'We find it's fine to waive the rule that limits large media company mergers in order to protect speech because this Nexstar merger will in no way impact speech in the US'. -The FCC in the coming months
Also because some people don't seem to know this, the government can't murder a man even if he was already dying of cancer.
It's more about what the company considers core business and what not. Most often they don't see the website as being important enough to the business so they don't invest in it.
We have gotten used to almost flawless experiences from amazon shopping. Google search finds (or used to) results sometimes almost like magic, etc. The thing is, that's the core business. These companies invent new technologies and have huge teams because doing this is so hard.
Now take a random supermarket chain. Their knowledge is about physical stores. Their core business has taught them where to open a store and how to arrange things in it so that they maximize their sales in that environment. It's very hard and it takes a very long time to shift to an online model. You have to find people with the right competencies and the right leadership to convince the company to do this and this is actually very hard to do.
Look at the categories example. That, to me, screams backend database. The company has invested a lot of money into building business intelligence on top of their physical stores. That organization screams "perfectly curated data warehouse" and I imagine suggesting something like "we need to reorganize the way we store data" is going to be met with blank stares if not full on outrage.
> almost flawless experiences from amazon shopping
In my opinion its too fuzzy, which is usually the opposite problem I have with website searches (e.g. searching a news site for keywords of an article I know exits, but it's taking me too literally)
If I search for "iPhone 14 Pro case", I don't want to see cases for iPhone 15 __, or non-pro models. I've (to my own fault) bought way too many of the wrong product because I search for a specific model and don't read the title before ordering, only to realize that Amazon didn't give me exactly what I typed in.
what kind of stiff are you buying you call this "flawless"? In my experience the Amazon search is worst there is. Search for "AAA batteries" and it will offer you AA and even N ones. Why on earth would anyone want that?
They even got the basics wrong. The other day I was searching for power bank under $5. Instead, many listings was $10+. How hard is it to get this right?
Because of horrible search quality I actively avoid Amazon when I can.
I think order by price might be ordering by the lowest available price at time of index. This could be an out of date price if the index isn't updated when other pricing is updated. It almost certainly doesn't include shipping, as that can vary depending on where the item is and where you are so it can't be indexed. Filtering by seller doesn't change the sorting, in my experience, and I think neither does filtering by condition.
So, if someone is selling a used item in poor condition with maximum shipping, that product is going to sort as a low priced item.
At least, that's my reverse engineered understanding.
Is it how humans think? Or is it just media trying to create drama out of nothing?
Most of the people who get exposed to extremist content without looking for it will surely not even register the ads around that content. An IBM ad cannot possibly be as noticeable as that.
And, of course, the real problem is the presence of said content, not it's placement among ads. Manufactured drama like the one we're looking at here only detracts us from taking about what is really important.
LITERALLY marketing is all about creating associations and perception. That is basically marketing's entire purpose for existing. So to say "well its only media that creates an association because of XXXXXX" sure! Because that is marketing. Thus marketing in a nazi filled content site makes your marketing associate you witrh nazis!
Every movie of a dystopian society shows some ads in bloody places, you don't think "man, I wonder if that company really just meant to sell workout equipment, and in no way related to the purge happening below the billboard in that area all the time". Again, its just not how we work.
There's a vast difference between saying "I live in a neighborhood that has a nazi in it" and "i actively go and spend my money at a bar that is known for making it easier for nazis to hang out there and harass customers"
"early stages of corporate dystopia". If anything, we're on the other side of it where companies are being held to some ridiculous standard that we don't even hold elected officials to. Remember Netflix having to fire Kevin Spacey for being accused of something that the president of the United States actually admitted to? How does this fit into the dystopian medium you think you live in?
I'm obviously not condoning abusive behaviour, I'm using this as an example of how much scrutiny there is on these corporations.
It's the same in this case: you're taking the view that a company should allow itself to be dragged into politics by the employee who publicly represents it. Surely that's wrong, isn't it? Companies should not be involved in politics. That's specifically what you are against when you call them dystopian.
This person, who I assume is an US citizen, is absolutely allowed to criticise the army, but they should do it as a citizen. Ultimately, the army serves the citizens and corporations serve customers.
Again - I'm not supporting this person in the OP, not supporting her insults and don't support doing this to customers in general. I'm also rather grateful to the US army and citizens enabling it, because they are #1 factor today why me and my family and friends are alive.
Regarding corporate dystopia, I politely disagree with you. Some isolated cases where corporations are a tiny little bit affected are a drop in ocean of the reverse situations. Also notice that in your example a person (Spacey) is unilaterally abused by the corporation, outside of any due process. This is actually an example for my idea, I think :) . And in general the trend is obvious - corporations are rapidly increasing in size, they destroy free market (or rather it works as expected) by demolishing any competition, bribe and subvert weak governments to push their agenda and lock all customers to their products/services. They blatantly exfiltrate money to the tax free offshores and avoid abiding by any laws (which matter). They deliberately stall any regulation by government of any new areas they are controlling (ads, ISP, media, communication and so on). They are like a rapidly growing tumor, for now mostly benign, but metastases has already started. And anti-monopoly government bodies of all countries are spectacularly impotent over past decades, sitting on their hand and doing nothing that matters.
She faced concequences for her actions as an employee, not as an activist of peace. Offensive language as an employee, especially when directed at the customer, usually gets you fired.
She wasn't whistle blowing/revealing any inside information. She wasn't adding anything to the topic of the conversation. She publicly made a rude personal comment at a conference from a platform which connects the company with its current and prospective customers. I'm surprised the company dragged this for so long. If this was a waiter at a restaurant saying "fuck you" to this guy while eating there, I'm sure they wouldn't even have had a chance to finish their shift.
I'm assuming the "fuck you" was the one that fired her. However you choose to understand free speech, being needlessly rude as a media representative of a company should get you fired.
Assuming accurate reporting, in the absence of a social media clause that, when shown, your boss agrees you don't need to sign? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
(Curiously, I've just seen someone walk past me with "duck off" printed on their T-shirt. But then, culture here in Germany is much more liberal about both word and deed — it's American cultural norms that made the autocorrupt inside my quote marks).
Given the tweets and the article, it's fair to assume that this is not the first time the person has exhibited such behavior and this was just the last drip overflowing the bucket.
Also when HR approaches me about it, I tell them their rules are stupid, but I am willing to educate them and show them how to write the correct rules, if they ask nicely.
I think that’s always been known, but the tacit agreement between users and Twitter has always been “I’ll post my content and anyone can see it, if they want to engage they make an account”. From a business perspective this feels like a big negative to me for Twitter. I’ve followed several links the last few days and been prompted to login, and nothing about those links felt valuable enough to do so.
bigint is the default data type for sequences and it's highly unlikely that somebody would reach an overflow with it.
I've worked on various database solutions, both rdbms and analytical and I find sequences to be one of the most misunderstood features in the industry. The only guarantee they make is that they generate unique values. Some of the newer distributed rdbms don't even guarantee they'll be monotonic.
Relying on them generating consecutive values is a sure way to get vendor lock-in to whatever database has made that guarantee.
The problem isn't that values aren't consecutive, it's that the sequence is exhausted quicker than you'd expect. Someone could define a PK as `int4 GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY` because their expected number of entries is below the cap, only for that cap to be exhausted due to the behavior (in fact, that's been mentioned a few times).
It 'violates' the principle of least surprise. Intuitively you'd expect `ON CONFLICT .... DO NOTHING` to do nothing, but it will increment the PK every time.
I wouldn’t be worried about the sequence itself running out, but the column it’s stored in in the table may not be large enough to handle those numbers.
I think we like to fool ourselves that decisions like these are based on performance considerations or maintainability or whatever, but in reality they would be based on time to market and skill availability in the areas where the team is being built.
At the end of the day, SQLite is not being rewritten because the cost of doing so is not justifiable