Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | throwup238's commentslogin

How do you derive constraints without a schema?

The value of a schema in a db like Postgres isn’t in the description of the storage format or indexing, but the invariants the database can enforce on the data coming in. That includes everything from uniqueness and foreign key constraints to complex functions that can pull in dozens of tables to decide whether a row is valid or should be rejected. How do you derive declarative rules from a turing complete language built into the database?


The current state must satisfy all constraints?

Eg some table Users -> you start with `add user_id` , `add org_id`, `remove org_id` for example, so then the current state is `Users{ user_id }`. But you trust the compiler to derive that, and then when you want to do something with Users you have to scope into it, or tell it how to handle different steps in that chain.

Im not saying this is not equivalent at the end of the day, just if anything surfaces it this way, or makes it more ergonomic.


Ah I think I misunderstood. That sounds like event sourcing? As far as I know that has never been implemented at a language level.

USAF also has a pilot shortage. Could have just been whatever the available pilots were certified to fly.

Or why the quarks that make up protons and neutrons have fractional charges, with +1 protons mixing two +2/3 up quarks and one -1/3 down quark, and the neutral neutron is one up quark and two down quarks. And where are all the other Quarks in all of this, busy tending bar?

They have fractional charges because that is how we happen to measure charge. If our unit of charge had been set when we knew about quarks, we would have chosen those as fundamental, and the charge of the electron would instead be -3.

Now, the ratios between these charges appear to be fundamental. But the presence of fractions is arbitrary.


> If our unit of charge had been set when we knew about quarks, we would have chosen those as fundamental, and the charge of the electron would instead be -3.

Actually, I doubt it. Because of their color charge, quarks can never be found in an unbound state but instead in various kinds of hadrons. The ways that quarks combine cause all hadrons to end up with an integer charge, with the ⅔ and -⅓ charges on various quarks merely being ways to make them come out to resulting integer charges.


Isn’t charge quantized? Observable isolated charges are quantized in units of e. You can call it -3 and +3 but that just changes the relative value for the quanta. The interesting question is still why the positive and neutral particles are nonelementary particles made up of quarks with a fraction of e, the math made possible only by including negatively charged ones (and yet electrons are elementary particles).

The balls aren’t that hard to make [1], but doing so at scale economically isn’t something you can build with some plug and play off the shelf machinery. It takes years to assemble a functioning factory like that and tune the process before it’s profitable. All the Western companies that make them are decades old with established and largely paid off manufacturing lines but once the Chinese government decided it was a critical industrial product downstream from their five year plans, it was just a matter of time and capital. Few other governments are willing to subsidized specialized manufacturing like that so investors don’t want to risk entering an established market.

The hard part is really quality control when making hundreds of thousand or millions of balls a day, at which point all metrology equipment is basically useless except for random sampling, which means your process has to be pretty much perfect before anyone will even buy from you, but you cant slow down the process because then you’re just losing money.

[1] https://youtu.be/41Z5v4NybWA?si=xzFw2xD93D9TfW6F (process for the balls starts around 1:50)


Good news, that’s a tiny drop in the bucket compared to mining operations. Rocket payloads are measured in the metric tons; copper mining is measured in tens of millions of metric tons per year. It’s not even a rounding error, you’d have to launch hundreds of solid copper rockets a day to even make a dent.

Elon is talking about a million satellite constellation and launching a rocket capable of putting 100 tons into orbit every hour.

At $120/mo might as well just get a big propane tank and have a tanker come refill it every six to twelve months. If they’re not using it to heat the house a 500 gallon tank lasts a long time. Bonus points because you can use it as a generator fuel source for the inevitable California power outage and possible earthquake disaster.

On my issue, the temperature extremes are like 61-63 with an average of 62. LOL. I’m out of state 6 months a year. I could just shut off the gas. But the realization w the recent price increases really make me want to get rid of gas. I bet I save $500 a year.

There isn’t a market. OP wrote that Rabbit R1 post after seeing the release video (according to a comment on this link, their blog post says otherwise) and immediately called it a ”milestone in the evolution of our digital organ”. Their judgement is obviously nonexistent.

Something tells me they never even downloaded OpenClaw before writing this blog post. It’s probably an aspirational vision board type post their life coach told them to write because they kept talking about OepnClaw during their sessions, and the life coach got tired of their BS.


Why is it phishy? Github.io has been the domain they use for all GH pages for a long time with subdomains mapping to GH usernames. It’s standard practice to separate user generated content from the main domain so that it doesn’t poison SEO.

Correct.

First of all, any subdomain system domain is already a bit phishy because you need to somehow parse whether github.io is officially part of github.com and not say something like git-hub.xyz by a phisher or whatever new TLD there. These things are used by sysadmin/project pairs that can't budget 1$/month for a domain name, so it's 100% a security/price tradeoff.

Second of all, the actual domain host is publishing as one of these untrusted users on their alternate subdomain, so it could be a phisher using a subdomain of the official alternate domain with malicious material

Thirdly, even if it is all legit, it is still a problem, because it weakens security posture, it trains users to ignore domain names.

I understand if it appears subtle, but I wish that we lived in a world where whoever is responsible for this gets put on a PIP


I get your general objections, but not in this specific case. Github has been using Github.io for pages since 2013 and it's been the de facto developer platform at least as long (and all other developer tools follow the same pattern when publishing user generated content). Unless GH has a massive vulnerability that hasn't been discovered yet, no one is publishing to *.github.github.io except for the official Github organization. That has been more stable than Linux syscalls and Windows GUI frameworks.

Would it really make a difference if they just added a CNAME from foobar.github.com to point at github.github.io?


At which point the AI figures out its easier to just switch to jj

You literally wrote in the blog post:

> Today, Rabbit R1 has been released, and I view it as a milestone in the evolution of our digital organ.

You viewed it as a “milestone in the evolution of our digital organ” without you let alone anyone having even tested it?

Yet you say ”That article was written when the Rabbit R1 presentation video was first released, I saw it and immediately reflect my thoughts on my blog.”?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: