I did not mean literal you neither. If “you” (the machine) are so smart, then you don’t need information exchange with “others”, so no need for “trust”
> At this stage, it has nothing to do with xmin and xmax, but rather because other transactions cannot see uncommitted data
Am I missing something or this statement is incomplete? Also I find the visualization of commit weird, it “points to” the header of the table, but then xmax gets updated “behind the scenes”? Isnt xmax/xmin “the mechanism behind how the database knows what is committed/not committed”? Also, there could be subtransactions, which make this statement even more contradictory?
I enjoyed the visualizations and explanations otherwise, thanks!
Ok, this article inspired some positivity in my view. Here comes, of course a disclaimer that this is just "wishful thinking", but still.
So we are in the process of "adapting a technology". Welcome, keep calm, observe, don't be ashamed to feel emotions like fear, excitement, anger and all else.
While adapting, we learn how to use it better and better. At first, we try "do all the work for me", then "ok, that was bad, plan what you would do, good, adjust, ok do it like this" etc etc.
A couple of years into the future this knowledge is just "passed on". If productivity grew and we "figured out how to get more out of the universe", then no jobs had to be lost, just readapted. And "investors" get happy not by "replacing workers", but by "reaping win-win rewards" from the universe at large.
There are dangers of course, like "maybe this is truly a huge win-win, but some loses can be hidden, like ecology", but "I hope there are people really addressing these problems and this win-win will help them be more productive as well".
For me the title is a bit of a contradiction: I always think about the library as “the final language”.
So author’s example of RoR/Ruby is “RoR is a great web service language that uses Ruby as the base, they evolved together and arguably as RoR is the main source of clients for ruby, ruby was as well designed for RoR as RoR for ruby”
I think about programming/design as languages/translation in a lot of ways: its languages all the way down.
I believe a reasonable push back to this surveillance increase should be “incresing law precision”, like “fines for making a really dangerous maneuver vs driving fast on an empty road”
“really scaring someone on a bike vs driving on a sidewalk in general”
Hey, community! Thank you for this opportunity to connect and feel closeness to the best parts and people in our industry.
Thank you for your open mindedness, smarts, stupid fun and lovable nerdiness.
I feel at home here.
One thing that makes me sad are dystopian fears. Not sure if this is warranted or not, but certainly get my dose of dread from HN. But thank you for being so sensitive and caring in this.
The most fun on this site is solving a problem and then having your mind blown by solutions in Apl/j/k and trying to guess what they mean without knowing anything about those languages
can you provide more context for this claim? my intuition and experience tells me the opposite.
what is the definition here? are impulsive avoidance copings like playing a video
game instead of doing the hard work of addressing the worries/planned hard activities not a “video game addiction”?
and if we are talking physical withdrawal, then how should we call the same aspect of nicotine/alcohol addiction mechanics?
> The avoidance of the words in no way devalues the achievement.
You basically say that “there are no miracles, this is just an engineered system that we can reason about and study its parts”?
> If anything, I feel their use devalues the achievement, assigning progress to luck or providence.
Magic is not luck or providence, it is about pure appreciation of something that could have not existed, but here it is in your hands.
Yes, thanks to the effort and creativity of a lot of people, but without the “appreciating like a kid”, only dissecting the thing to “parts” might miss something. That was my point