postgres requests an id from the sequence for each row of the incoming data ahead of time since it doesn't know which rows are updates and which are inserts (although presumably this could be changed?). the sequence doesn't reset down for the unused so this can eat through it unexpectedly quickly if you have a table with a relatively large volume of updates.
also as a tip if you hit the max integer for the sequence and need space to implement a fundamental fix you can quickly change the sequence to start at -1 and go down. there's no issue with negative ids since they're also integers.
this also matters if you do a lot of upserts on a table that are predominantly updates. postgres requests an id from the sequence for each row of the incoming data ahead of time since it doesn't know which rows are updates and which are inserts. the sequence doesn't reset down for the unused so this can eat through it unexpectedly quickly.
if you hit the max integer for the sequence and need space to implement a fundamental fix you can quickly change the sequence to start at -1 and go down. there's no issue with negative ids since they're also integers.
In my experience people are inaccurately pessimistic, in part due to a lack of imagination. So risk assessment that's more accurate will present as more optimistic.
DRY needs to be balanced with SRP (Single Responsibility Principle). You can legitimately have two functions that are exactly the same but they should not be DRY'd up if they are actually serving different purposes.
The use cases will likely diverge in the future, and if the functions are DRY'd making changes will make introducing bugs from the calling code that you're not working on easy. Eventually the single function will likely have a lot of conditions in it, which is a red flag for this situation.
I'm not presenting an argument against UBI - I am pointing out that his argument is flawed.
Small tribes of humans defending hunting/foraging grounds is a state of pre-civilization. Life required work then too, and things were worse. His premise is that things used to be better and we've made it worse. Hard disagree.
> Land used to exist without a monetary cost to access it. That was the natural way of things prior to the private property system and monetary system.
All land / resources were staked out by small tribes of humans who might kill you for using it?
vs 'raise the control rods to a height of 4 inches'