> I would not have been able to evaluate the speed gain of an Oracle database using whatever proprietary implementation they are using.
Which has nothing to do with the article. In fact it has less than nothing to do with anything, as even the original whitepaper goes through great lengths to specify that it's lab observations and only compares versions of oracle, none of which would have been relevant to you if you'd refused to use oracle in the first place.
And Oracle never forbid running benchmarks (maybe they could now, they wouldn't have had the tracking and C3 to do so back in the 80s), DeWitt Clauses forbid publishing benchmarks without prior approval.
> Claiming I've called author anything is putting words in my mouth.
You're asserting that you can not trust oracle's numbers, in response to an article by a (former) oracle employee talking about "their" sort algorithm and the numbers it got.
There are only two possibilities here:
1. you got hopelessly lost in both space and time as you were looking for a 20 years ago thread on the linked oracle whitepaper, and your comments have nothing to do with TFA
2. you're calling the TFAA a liar who can not be trusted, given they're the author of the algorithm, givesthe same number, and in fact originally derived the rough gain when implementing and benchmarking the algorithm:
> once I had this implemented within the Oracle DBMS I was able to compare it with the old sort. The new sort was often about 5 times faster than the old sort.
TFA is a post by the author of the algorithm, talking about the performance they originally predicted and later observed after implementing it while they were working at oracle, now that the patent has expired and anyone can implement the algorithm.
So:
- you are calling them a liar
- and are asserting you can not evaluate the claim even though you can implement and benchmark the algorithm in whatever DBMS you favour
Even if you “rely on countless unsafe blocks”, unsafe is additive, it gives access to additional APIs which are not checked. It does not disable affine types, the borrow checker, or send/sync traits. Unless the entire codebase is unsafe (e.g. fresh out of c2rust) it’s very hard to not have more guarantees.
And because unsafe is generally highly local or localizable reasoning (conventionally backed by safety justifications) it really is quite reasonable to go plugging at it, or task an AI within that.
> In Python, this works correctly for negative values.
They’re both “broken” in different ways. Arguably C’s brokenness is more apparent and less useful but Python also has footguns: C uses truncated division for its “modulo” so the remainder has the sign of the dividend, Python uses floored division so the remainder has the sign of the divisor instead.
The wiki page for modulo has a pretty extensive page on the subject.
The reason MDD was merged into Boeing is MDD was in the process of failing: the MD10 was completely outdated, the MD11 was not competitive, and with the Cold War ending the infinite money tap of military projects was closing (it was already quite a ways there, the last supper was in 1993, by the time of the MDD merger half the major contractors were gone)
As far as I understand, every change to indirections (pointers) is “shape unstable”, as it the update invalidates the old value, which causes every reference into that to be dangling (rather than merely modified).
Adding a new node at the end of a linked list, or more generally setting an unset pointer, would technically be shape-stable as you can’t have a reference into nothing. Generally pushing an element in a dynamic array is not shape-stable (the array can need to reallocate), although there would be workarounds e.g. a push which fails on lack of capacity would be shape-stable. Some sort of hybrid (e.g. rrb) would also work as extension consists of adding new node (possibly re-rooting the tree) but does not invalidate existing nodes.
> You might be using the wrong database if that’s what you’re hoping for. Columnar databases are a separate category.
I don't want a columnar database, I have a few tables which would be excellent fits for columnar storage. And the relational model doesn't say anything about the way data is stored.
Nobody said “it’s fine”, I’m pointing out that it’s nowhere near as bad as the fear-mongers claim, and it’s being cleaned up, not to mention the exclusion zone was decided under the linear no threshold model so it’s nowhere near uninhabitable.
If you want uninhabitable areas go take a hike in the ww1 red zones.
Oh no, the only part under penalty of perjury is the complaining party misrepresenting their authorisation by the rights holder (17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(iv)).
So if you DMCA HN, claiming that this thread infringes on Moana the possible perjury would be for claiming to represent Disney.
Now in theory the content claims are made under the good faith standard (17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(v)), and in theory the complaining party could be held for damages, but in practice getting ahold of the complainant is very hard, and suing them for damage is often worse than the actual damage.
Much of the Fukushima area is inhabited again (the exclusion zone has shrunk from an original 1250km2 down to 371) and there is ample evidence that the overreaction evacuation did a lot more harm than good.
Technically Pepcid is also an antihistamine, but h2. And h1-antihistamines have been used for sedation for a long time tho the effect is very much ymmv (first one I tried OTC would knock me out but not let me rest at all, not a keeper).
Is the dutch healthcare system broadly against hypnotics? Culture (of the country or its medical system) can massively influence prescriptions or their lack thereof e.g. france is pretty famous for prescribing hypnotics very easily (and having a broad range of them), while the UK is generally a lot more reluctant.
SOP does not prevent hotlinking in the first place, a hotlink is simple request (the most simple if anything), CORS isn’t going to be in the path at all.
That’s… not what cors does? CORS will only block browser-mediated “non-simple” requests, they don’t prevent other systems from accessing it as long as they don’t use a browser (or disable CORS in a headless browser).
> Fair-ish point, if a bit cheeky. But threads can be still threads, i.e. in the same address space, but without actually having shared state between them. And then they're still threads, not processes.
If they don’t share state implicitly, then by all relevant features they are processes. That they share an address space is not really relevant except as an opportunity for optimisation. See BEAM.
Hell, older consumer OS used to not have memory isolation, even after multitasking was introduced.
And the article is now. What luck!
> I would not have been able to evaluate the speed gain of an Oracle database using whatever proprietary implementation they are using.
Which has nothing to do with the article. In fact it has less than nothing to do with anything, as even the original whitepaper goes through great lengths to specify that it's lab observations and only compares versions of oracle, none of which would have been relevant to you if you'd refused to use oracle in the first place.
And Oracle never forbid running benchmarks (maybe they could now, they wouldn't have had the tracking and C3 to do so back in the 80s), DeWitt Clauses forbid publishing benchmarks without prior approval.
> Claiming I've called author anything is putting words in my mouth.
You're asserting that you can not trust oracle's numbers, in response to an article by a (former) oracle employee talking about "their" sort algorithm and the numbers it got.
There are only two possibilities here:
1. you got hopelessly lost in both space and time as you were looking for a 20 years ago thread on the linked oracle whitepaper, and your comments have nothing to do with TFA
2. you're calling the TFAA a liar who can not be trusted, given they're the author of the algorithm, givesthe same number, and in fact originally derived the rough gain when implementing and benchmarking the algorithm:
> once I had this implemented within the Oracle DBMS I was able to compare it with the old sort. The new sort was often about 5 times faster than the old sort.
So which is it?