I quite liked this article.
That said, I think it misses the two big advantages of denormalized (one big table) data -
It’s much easier for people to use, especially non-technical stakeholders who tend to just not understand joins.
It doesn’t require anything from the query optimizer… until you’ve had a complex query randomly go from “runs instantly” to “spins for hours” overnight, you can’t appreciate the value of a simple execution plan.
A bonus benefit is that it scares off the architecture astronauts!
The author really lucked out that the government employee was not actually malicious. I can think of a good few ways she could have made life much more difficult for the author, even if he was likely to ultimately succeed.
Was thinking this too. She could have blocked that number on the (valid) basis that it was intentionally spamming them, and then stopped their benefits.
Lumen, Nanite, Substrate, Metahumans, and Chaos Physics all come to mind as major innovations driven by Epic. Nanite specifically has pretty much no alternatives. Additionally, the developer UX on UE5 gets better from release to release - for instance, being able to recompile your logic or animations while actively running the game is pretty insane.
One comment I found interesting basically argued that if the billionaires are so scared of over the top wealth taxes, they should be pushing/lobbying for more reasonable wealth taxes as a blocking play, otherwise they can’t really complain if the really disruptive versions get passed.
I don’t think that’s a fair take - his argument is primarily that the ballot measure is fundamentally flawed, and likely put forward in bad faith by a group who’s CEO literally admits to using bad faith/destructive ballot measures to force concessions from counterparties.
Matt Levine has a fairly reasonable take on this:
'[…] if you go to Jump Trading and Jane Street and say “hello, I have an unregulated poorly designed mechanism that could lead to $50 billion of market value collapsing overnight, would you like to trade with me,” they are going to say yes, but their eyes are going to light up, you know? If at Time 0 you give them an extremely gameable system that can produce billions of dollars of profit, at Time 10 your system is going to be a smoking wreckage and they are going to have billions of dollars of profit. That’s their whole job, you know? […] But as a heuristic, I mean, come on. Terra was like “hello we have a balloon full of money, here is a pin, dooooooon’t pop the balloon.” Guess what!'
Prediction markets should be accurate, not fair. If people want to gamble without doing the work of finding some alpha, they should head to a casino, not a prediction market.
Seconds count for 911 calls, but really your odds are already bad if calling about...a heart attack. There's one study about non-runners having heart attacks during marathons due to road closures [0]. If they had a heart attack that day, they were 15% more likely to die within a month. Not good, but it's not that bad.
Going full SV utilitarian, I'm curious what's the net change in accidents between
(1) texting
(2) no texting?
I've read that texting is the equivalent of having 2 beers. Even "hands free" is distracting. I continue to see people sucked into their phones and oblivious that they're operating a 4,000+ pound machine.
>Well, you're picking extremes when AFAIK, it'll put the average person at the legal limit.
>One beer will start to impair you.
Thank you for illustrating exactly the problem. Impairment is a binary in colloquial usage. Statistically no average-median-ish person has ever been impaired in the colonial sense by one average beer. Any everyone knows this. Two average beers applied to an average person won't get you to the legal limit without aggravating circumstances (i.e. zero time to metabolize + empty stomach, or perhaps conflicting medication).
I will be the first to admit you can give a bunch of people one beer and detect statistically significant difference vs a control group or you can give one person one beer many times and evaluate against a baseline and detect a statistically significant difference. But statistical difference does not "impairment" in the colloquial sense make. And everyone knows this based on their own observed life experience, even people without experience should be able to deduce this by observing how the world behaves for if what you say were true, the way things work would be very different.
And by using the term impairment to describe/quantify the impact of one beer and then re-using that term in contexts where it may overload with the colloquial more binary usage the upper bound of what "one beer" is such that one beer at the top end may equal two or three at the low end.
So now we nor does any casual reader know if texting is equivalent in danger to two "real beers", which almost makes it sound not bad for how distracting it seems to be, or if it's equivalent in danger to two "paternalism beers" in which case it's pretty seriously dangerous.
And this key word overloading problem seems to be endemic to all manner of issues these days.
The "good/neutral/bad" DND axis implies moral intent, not necessarily outcome. A stupid person doing something insane for a reasoning that is generally understood to be morally good can be seen as "chaotic good." Hence why a lawful good Paladin can maintain their lawful good status, and their divinely derived abilities, even when they're doing things we may consider evil, like executing a youth for breaking a law, so long as the Paladin (and the divine entity) strongly believe that it's for the greater good of the law and society.
In this case, the guy thought he was preventing people from using their phones while driving, which is a good thing, but he was too dumb to realize it would have negative consequences apparently.
It’s much easier for people to use, especially non-technical stakeholders who tend to just not understand joins.
It doesn’t require anything from the query optimizer… until you’ve had a complex query randomly go from “runs instantly” to “spins for hours” overnight, you can’t appreciate the value of a simple execution plan.
A bonus benefit is that it scares off the architecture astronauts!
reply