Yes that is common. I was more talking about the case where someone perhaps introduces a bug causing a nil pointer dereference on some requests, so the panic is not explicitly called in code. In which case you would definitely want the recover in place.
I think a good usecase for recover is in gRPC services for example. One wouldn't want to kill the entire service if some path gets hit leading to a panic while handling one request.
Graph DBs are generalized relationship stores. SQL can work for querying graphs, but graph DB DSLs like Cypher become very powerful when you're trying to match across multiple relationship hops.
For example, to find all friend of a friend or friends of a friend of a friend:
`MATCH (user:User {username: "amanj41"})-[:KNOWS*2..3]->(foaf) WHERE NOT((user)-[:KNOWS]->(foaf)) RETURN user, foaf`
yes there's that idiosyncrasy, as well as client ideally needing to read the previous clock from the DB before writing an update for that key unless it's ok with the write being viewed as concurrent. Plus the extra memory overhead to store the clocks in the client.
Vector clocks are very cool. Having read through how they were initially used in Riak, I was blown away that such an implementation could scale. I guess this is why Cassandra took a different approach?
Wasn't Madoff's plan the whole time to pocket investor money for himself, whereas Sam's was to arrogantly (and illegally) gamble it with the thought being he could return the principal from Alameda back to FTX in future? Genuine question, I'm not super informed on these.
I have IBD and definitely believe there is an association. But it still goes back to my question about "is there a safe limit". I think in particular for IBD, IBS, Crohn's etc, my suspicion is that there are two mechanisms at play with ultraprocessed diets:
1. Additives + microplastics in modern diets doing bad things to the microbiome.
2. Fiber intake is being reduced by ultaprocessed diets. I think the lack of pre+pro-biotics is a big deal, and ultraprocessed foods contribute to their reduced intake.
A concern I've had with past studies has been the dosage of processed foods. It's better to avoid them altogether, but I haven't seen many seeking to find limits on how one can safely have X percent of their diet be from ultra-processed foods and still be healthy.
It seems like the biggest correlation between overall health and processed food intake is that processed foods are calorie dense and lead to weight gain. If excess calories are coming from sugars and unhealthy fats, and one is consuming large amounts of bad additives, that will surely lead to bad outcomes.
What I would like to see is isocaloric studies, where individuals get plenty of fiber, micronutrients and a good macronutritional balance from "healthy" foods, but are also allowed some reasonable percentage of their daily intake to be processed.
Maybe it's the guilt of feeling like I'm a weaker person for being addicted to having desserts or chips on a regular basis, but I also feel like they are pleasures of modern life that are worth enjoying in moderation. I mainly strive to eat healthy for all my core meals, and allow myself ultra-processed snacks, while not gaining weight.
The Vision Pro is hardly differentiated from the top end Meta VR model. There are a few UX enhancements, and I think they'll take the lead in the space eventually. But I wouldn't say this is a big innovation in the VR space from what I've seen.
The idea is fine, but the inevitable outcome here is that Apple and Google do the same thing in their respective smartphones and this device (if it's even good at all) is obviated.
Probably because gym density isn't super high in some areas, so consumers may not have a ton of choices. And opening a gym that can compete with a big gym chain is not as easy as opening a sandwich shop to compete with subway.
OMAD it will always be pretty hard to eat a lot. But, for slightly more accommodating feeding windows, people can still eat plenty especially if they have higher density foods
It's not, but the title is extremely misleading. You MUST be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. What the study shows is that simply by doing intermittent fasting, people naturally tend to eat fewer total calories per day, and can end up in a caloric deficit.
Please people, do not simply think that intermittent fasting makes you lose weight. If you still have a propensity to eat junk food or just a lot of food even in fasting windows, you could still be gaining weight or staying at maintenance.
Can you explain why that is the case? I would have thought that the large amounts of immigration from many places to countries like the U.S. would lead to greater genetic diversity.