So this isn't really "visualize FastAPI endpoints", it's "visualize the inheritance cascade caused by using the pydantic-resolve approach to data fetching/transformation, which involves adding post-hooks to compositions of Pydantic objects". A vanilla FastAPI user like myself is going to have trouble understanding it without realizing how tied it is to that framework.
to better describe the relationship, it borrows the concept 'subset' from pydantic-resolve, which act like pick several fields from original class but you can still reference to it.
it's not bound with pydantic-resolve, for vanilla fastapi user if the business model are well designed and composed, it can benefited from this visualization approach too.
the goal is to make the dependencies clear for developers, and figure out the potential impacts from one node to others.
pydantic-resolve is just another my project to make the process of data composition close to ER model and get rid of glue codes like 'for loops'.
For the sails to be an effective means of propulsion they need to transfer a lot of force through the mast and stays to the hull. This require the attachment points to be very solid. Not something you can easily do as a retrofit. You'd need to reinforc the hull aroud the mast and stay attachments.
They likely can but with reduced changes for being optimal. Sails, keel and rudder should be balanced so that adjusted sails cause minimal pivoting force to mitigate with the rudder. Also the supports below the mast and plates for the stays likely need planning to allow sufficient structure without limiting the working angles of boom too much.
Optimizing them for speed makes them flexible: when they're not full, you can go fast, and when they're full, they can degrade gracefully to 30-35 mph.
> If a straight stretch of road has 4 intersections with stop lights for cross traffic, and one of those lights is green for 20 seconds for the straight road and green for 40 seconds for the cross traffic, then the end-to-end throughput of that road (ignoring turns on/off for the sake of simplicity) is 1/3 of its hourly capacity, or 600 cars per hour. Widening the road won’t fix that intersection.
I don't see how the intersection affects road-widening calculations at all. Doubling the lanes will double the throughput, to 1200 cars per hour. We weren't expecting widening the road to also eliminate red lights.
The lane widening and whatnot basically acts as a cache for the bottleneck intersection (or other feature).
A good example is getting the small % of left turning traffic out of a lane where much of the traffic wants to go straight and there is much oncoming traffic. When there's a break, you've got a car cached right there. When there's not you can push any left turning traffic into the cache for later. Massive improvement, even if all the out flows from the light are the same throughput.
is the relationship between lanes and throughput linear? even where it's illegal people will change lanes and do all sorts of suboptimal things with the additional space; particularly if people need to shift multiple lanes to be in the correct legal lane.
author here, you are right, I missed that. In my pathetic defense, the normal argument around here (Cambridge, MA) is about literal lane widening and narrowing, and not adding and subtracting.
genuinely the worst opinion I’ve seen on HackerNews
there are such better ways to enable these experiences without introducing the zero-sum, scam-inducing, corporate fuckery game that making it a pay-to-win ad-driven experience gives you
I’m also concerned that boredom makes you want to see ads
That sounds absolutely awful, honestly. I wouldn't want to see any of those things mess with the "natural" order of search results for whatever I've explicitly searched for.
I do agree with you in theory, though their 'attempts' at this kind of thing are comical if not absurd (witness the organic search results in the App Store).
In history they didn't have video games, porn, or mass surveillance of what you and your angry friends are getting up to. I would not expect things to play out by any historical pattern.
I agree that videogames and porn are effective pressure-release valves for this energy. Or perhaps sedatives is a better metaphor.
My pet theory about Gamergate was that it was in part a reaction from young men who felt disenfranchised by the offers mainstream society gave them. So they retreated to videogames and a virtual world where they could have some level of (virtual) success and esteem. And then when some women showed up there, they reacted with the anger you would expect from someone already driven out of one place and forced into a corner.
Even so, sedation and distraction only gets you so far. People want to feel that they have meaning and dignity in the real world, not just on their screens.
They had plenty of porn like opportunities. Prostitutes are known throughout history. Usually a double standard where the males were accepted but females not
ask a historian... my guess is no, but sleeping with a girl is better than porn if you get that option. we also don't know what 'exotic dancing' opportunities the 'common man' got.
In historical times, rulers would also murder millions of people on suspicion of disloyalty. I think you overestimate the impact of video games and porn. Even if what you're saying is right, it's not better than some kind of violent correction. The trouble is that pushing young men to the point where violence is the answer wipes out all the rules. There will probably be a lot of collateral damage.
Ethicists forbid studying anything interesting, leaving us to scrape up data from natural experiments like this patient having a heart attack while already hooked up to an EEG.
What a weird way of phrasing that.
The whole point of ethics in multiple disciplines is to try and study the principles of humanity in the society we've formed. The areas of philosophy, medicine, justice, and religion are filled with centuries of discussions trying to argue and explain a lot of these matters.
But the philosopher of the Internet of today, instead of curiosity of reasoning and arguing for what should change in deontology, and why; sums it up as "ethicists forbid...".
I'd really like to understand your views better on what should change and why...
Especially when there's plenty of ignoring of ethics in today's world!
The centuries of ethics discussions have nothing to do with the current institutions that gatekeep science and health with worries and trivia, any more than philosophers of nature are responsible for enviromentalists not letting us build housing. I'm entirely referring to anti-growth bureaucrats. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/31/highlights-from-the-co...
Ethicists seem worse for the world than actually unethical people because they bind the majority of good people from progressing, which is what gets us out ahead of our baser natures.
I believe that many of the criticisms are either naive or intentionally ignore the importance of ethical oversight in research. The existence of these processes ensures that research is conducted with rigor and thought, which is crucial for maintaining high standards. Some examples suggest they aim at those high standards, and yet fail to see the value on these.
These applications allow you to dissect, discuss and reason about every presumption you had coming in, how you handle people's data with care, understand the risks and be prepared for anything.
They help both you and your participants. Help you not be an idiot, help you to grow and question your own procedures, and ultimately help you write the damn paper as you have clearly given the matter enough thought at that point. You need to prove yourself, and that is a good thing.
Without ethics, other motivations inevitably end up undermining any good intentions an experimenter may have. Ethics are the "laws" of science that constrain us for the sake of all. Your opinions here reflect a Libertarian bent, I bet.
(2)-ish patterns are more what I have in mind, but note that as soon as you're expecting the same `db.query(hats)` to give you the data you need for both (1) and (2), you might already be pretty far down the wrong road.
It's nice of evolution to imbue some people with these false views. I hope your kids inherit the earth so people with more realistic outlooks don't have to be born and suffer through it.
Grant that overordering will often be the correct strategy, economically, since the marginal cost of unloading a few units is low and the damage when customers think you're poorly stocked is high. In a perfect world, they'd discount the extra food instead of throwing it out, but that devalues your stock and people start expecting that as the real price.
Enlisting social cooperation leads to an even better world: the store always have products in stock, and never wastes any, while consumers get to feel the moral satisfaction (not guilt) of cooperating to choose the food that avoids the most waste. Highminded signs about "please choose the earliest expiration date" may give less of that satisfaction than a sticker that makes you feel like you're helping the food.
