It's about the customer recognizing the product as something they are ready to buy, which is associated with the dictionary definition for shipped "(of a product) be made available for purchase."
It falls apart slightly in that the customer technically starts buying the product on day one, while it is still just a glimmer in someone's eye, but "shipping" referring to the point where the customer says "Yes, that is what I wanted" is close enough to stay within the intent of recognizing something available for purchase methinks.
> If you’ve given users the best software ever
Of course, in context, the users aren't your customer. They may be someone else's customer, but that wouldn't be shipped by your hand. Your delivery is limited to your customer.
> The thread seems to be about how one would manage baristas.
What gives you that impression? It isn't not about baristas, but namely about a parallel between baristas and athletics. That was the context that was setup at the head of this particular thread branch, and we haven't change the subject (aside from that irrational attempt related to being "put down", whatever that was).
> I guess that’s a no then.
Correct. There is no logical place for pointless emotions here. Save it for human interactions.
Not forgotten, but not particularly relevant. The context we followed only inherited the athletics analogy and how it parallels with baristas.
Sometimes it is necessary to ignore the blatantly obvious. You can't meaningfully alter the ranking of a sports team because their star player was out with a broken leg. You have to accept the circumstances for what they are.
But I'm not sure that translates to something like shift times which are fundamental to the game.
Because that's what is necessary in a market economy? If they don't put in effort to compete, the customer will find another team of baristas that will. It is not like it is hard to find another coffeeshop.
> you shouldn't have to arbitrarily put someone at the bottom of the curve
What is arbitrary about it? The reality is that more coffeeshops open than can actually be supported by coffee drinkers, so it is an economic necessity that some end up shuttering due to being at the "bottom of the curve".
> Taking more granular detail into account just isn't done.
Where'd you dream up that idea? I operate a restaurant, so I at least have first-hand experience in overseeing barista-like workers, and I don't know how you could possibly ignore such details?
I'm sure I'm not perfect at it. I'm certainly not accurately capturing the butterfly flapping its wings in Africa. But you'd never flat-out ignore the blatantly obvious like shift times.
What do you do in athletics? Do you tell the kids (graveyard shift) they aren't allowed to participate in sports anymore because they can't compete with the big leagues (peak hours)?
Probably not. More likely you would look at the different leagues individually. I'm surprised this idea is novel to you.
A Blackberry moment, perhaps. There appears to be something there, some groups are latching onto it and deriving value from it, but we haven't yet seen the iPhone come along to transform that initial interest into something that sweeps the world.
It sounds to me like what is missing is community.
Around here, if you go outside you're soon going to learn who the like-minded nerds are. Even if you don't chance-encounter them directly, the people you do encounter are apt to know them and let you know about them. From there, you can reach out. Connection made.
In fact, I was just having a conversation with an old friend who recently moved to my area and he noted how everyone is out there talking to each other and finding out about each other, which felt foreign to him. He says where he moved from he was effectively anonymous. I suspect your living arrangement is more like his previously was.
Perhaps the solution isn't tech-based, but simply for us to be more neighbourly the old fashioned way?
Of course. I know reading is hard, but nobody has suggested there aren't solutions. Obviously there are, else Postgres would be pretty much unusable. But the question remains: Why resort to hacks that require extra complexity in the application when you can just as easily use the database as it was designed to be used? What are you getting in return?
Engineers and scientists are paid professionals. They are financially incentivized to help other people. Maybe you somehow managed to not notice, but I am but a person on an Internet forum. There is no incentive offered for me to do anything for anyone else. To have the gall to even ask for me to work for you without any compensation in kind is astounding.
Of what difference does it make if anyone takes me seriously or not? That's the most meaningless attribute imaginable. Oh noes, a random nobody on the internet doesn't believe me! It's the end of the world as we know it... How droll.
Perhaps it is that you do not understand what value means? Or how did you manage to write all those words and not come up with any suggestion of value whatsoever?
Well, let's hope the "computers are magic" riff-raff never show up at the design reviews. Especially if they expect someone to explain to them the basics of computing without any reasonable offer of compensation in return.
If those people show up here and put on a tantrum by pressing random buttons or whatever it was that you were trying to point out... Oh well? I wouldn't have even noticed if you didn't bring it up.
What value you found in calling attention to their pointless tantrums is an interesting mystery, though!
> I still would like to know how SQLite does not suffer from the same problems as any other RDBMS.
That's simple: Not being an RDMBS, only an engine, is how it avoids the suffering.
The n+1 problem is the result of slow execution. Of course, an idealize database has no time constraints, but the real world is not so kind. While SQLite has not figured out how to defy the laws of physics, it is able to reduce the time to run a query to imperceptible levels under typical usage by embedding itself in the application. Each query is just a function call, which are fast.
Postgres' engine can be just as fast, but because it hides the engine behind the system layer, you don't interact with the engine directly. That means you need to resort to hacks to try and poke at the engine where the system tries to stand in the way. The hacks work... but at the cost of more complexity in the application.
> Joins are not a "hack," they are an integral part of the relational model.
Yes, joins are an essential part of the relational model, but we're clearly not talking about the relational model. The n+1 problem rears its ugly head when you don't have a relational model – when you have a tree-like model instead.
> The included query in the gist returns all available information about the albums present in a single query. No n+1.
No n+1, but then you're stuck with tables/relations, which are decidedly not in a tree-like shape.
You can move database logic into your application to turn tables into trees, but then you have a whole lot of extra complexity to contend with. Needlessly so in the typical case since you can just use SQLite instead... Unless you have a really strong case otherwise, it's best to leave database work for databases. After all, if you want your application to do the database work, what do you need SQLite or Postgres for?
Of course, as always, tradeoffs have to be made. Sometimes it is better to put database logic in your application to make gains elsewhere. But for the typical greenfield application that hasn't even proven that users want to use it yet, added complexity in the application layer is probably not a good trade. At least not in the typical case.
1. At time of writing, there has been one downvote in the first comment, followed by one upvote in the subsequent comment. Not only does that not translate to "a lot of people", it was quite likely just one person. And unless that person was you, it is impossible to know what their intent was. I'm not sure what are you trying to add here.
2. Who gives a shit? If the "computers truly are magic" camp don't understand what I wrote, great! It wasn't written for them in the first place. If that compels them to use their time pressing a button instead of learning about how computers work, great! Not my problem. I'm not sure what you are trying to add here.
It's about the customer recognizing the product as something they are ready to buy, which is associated with the dictionary definition for shipped "(of a product) be made available for purchase."
It falls apart slightly in that the customer technically starts buying the product on day one, while it is still just a glimmer in someone's eye, but "shipping" referring to the point where the customer says "Yes, that is what I wanted" is close enough to stay within the intent of recognizing something available for purchase methinks.
> If you’ve given users the best software ever
Of course, in context, the users aren't your customer. They may be someone else's customer, but that wouldn't be shipped by your hand. Your delivery is limited to your customer.