"Correct technological choice": I think relational algebra style APIs (a la Polars) are the "correct technological choice" here. SQL is just a tool to express relational algebra, and I'm not sure it's a good one.
Also, from my limited experience with a single OLED screen, it seems that most stuff was created for a certain kind of screen without as much colour fidelity, and now that stuff seems far more...obnoxiously "saturated"?...on an OLED screen.
No, because if my case holds more genera (and I suspect it does), the answers are in part out of sheer frustration, and therefore prone to being similar to the last one given.
The root problem is a lack of imagination that cannot fathom how the person making the judgement might find themselves in the position of the judged, in the not-so-far-future.
The good news is that reality does not care whether or not you lack imagination. One can only marvel then, at the sequence of events that lead to the "unthinkable".
Wanting to help others isn't being discouraged. You helping others is being discouraged (apparently? that's your claim, because you believe the market has expectations that you believe should not apply to you?).
What? This isn't "me", winning. This is the age-old reality of "you are owed absolutely nothing", and that "if you are owed something, you will know because people will be paying you for it". This is capitalism at its core.
When it comes specifically to helping others:
1) you are either paid for it by an employer, in which case you ought to do it based on the employer's requirements, and all extraneous complaints are null and void unless
2) you create your own business off of your expertise, where you get to choose what precisely you offer people, and people get to choose whether they value your expertise; or
3) you do it for free, because you get something out of the experience which is entirely unrelated to how others treat you. If you're doing it for free to establish yourself through "loss-leader" tactics, but you cannot turn your losses into said leadership, then you can't complain. The world considers you to be an overvalued commodity. End of story.
Welcome to reality! You can rage if you'd like. The world will not care. There's business to do, money to be made, and entertainment to be had in the form of people who think they are worth more than what the market prices them. Either they are right and they eventually get movies made out of their life stories ("rags to riches!"), or they are wrong and they serve as living comedy (which can also be converted into money).
This is hardcore Reaganomics I am suggesting, not "youth-communism" (lol, wtf? where does that even come from...). Either you are rich enough to earn respect, or you are sensible enough to know you're not worth any. Which one is it?
If you believe you can be rich enough to be shown respect, then why are you wasting your time commenting on HN, instead of turning the apparent coming-doom into a business opportunity? The wealth you earn this way can then be convert into concrete respect if you so choose?
1) Bioreactors have available many options other than antibiotics for controlling bacterial growth.
2) A bioreactor is not "basically just an animal with a severely curtailed feature set". A bioreactor is not even "basically an organ with a severely curtailed feature set".
3) What precisely do you mean by "sterile techniques will only get you so far, especially at scale"?
There are actual issues with lab-grown meat. In a nutshell: nutritional quality, and the high degree of post-processing likely needed in order to make them palatable in terms of texture and taste.
TL;DR when someone reasons by analogy, doubt everything they say.
I disagree: I don't think there's a pure natural impulse to want to help others. It's usually coated with a bunch of other stuff, inadvertently (e.g. when dealing with attractive members of the opposite sex: wanting to prove our value; or when dealing with requests for help within an organization beyond what our job descriptions require: we hope that people will recognize that as we stand we are "undervalued").
I don't think the suggested "requirement" (?) to avoid microagression is to answer both X and Y. I think the suggestion to avoid microagression is to avoid using the term microagression in the first place.
Another one would be to recognize that you are fully within your rights to not offer help where it's not your job to offer help. No one cares if you choose not to answer support requests for your open source project, nor will the world suffer for it.
On the flip side, you can't expect those you do help to care enough to show you respect for your help either. If being respected and/or people making special allowances for your tone is something you do care about, well, then don't help to begin with. Contrary to our self-centered worries, the world will go on fine without us. It might even go on better without us; who is to say, after all? Most certainly not us.
Here's a piece of advice I keep hearing from people who are more powerful than me (Usually, these were also people older than me, but that is becoming less true as I grow older myself.): you're owed absolutely nothing. No one is.
Most human beings on this planet live in full awareness of that fact. So its only a matter of time until those who don't, end up learning that too.
In the highly likely case where your answers are crap, the world is spared yet another person who thinks they are well-suited to add to the mess. In the equally possible case where your answers are not crap, you are spared having to deal with people who cannot appreciate your campaign medals.
nosplaining is great. Welcome to how most of us live.
That also helps to zero out the probability you'll be paying someone who takes a "craftsperson's approach" to their work, versus a "production-line approach".
Neither is bad. The production-line approach is good at producing something defined by a fixed specification, reliably. Predictability in quantity produced and product quality are both important.
The craftsperson's approach is good at producing things where each thing is an incremental improvement over the last. Predictability in quantity produced is usually an anti-goal, as it is best left as another project (probably another craftperson's project). Predictability of quality produced is often sacrificed on purpose in order to get out of a local optima and better explore a larger landscape. So, while quality improves in the long term, it may not in the short term.
Patronage, historically, was aware of this. It did not demand, it trusted. It was intensely aware of the imperfection in humans, and it is questionable to what extent it considered genius as a truth, rather than merely a helpful myth (helpful only after the person was long dead, and not actually in the production of new creative works, but rather in keeping up the market value of previously created works, in order to help fund new ones).
> contacted gate pitchm2 pitchcell height,and take the square root
I am having trouble parsing `pitchm2 pitchcell height`.
Assuming that you meant to use `*` and then HN's markdown assumed it was italics, and placing `×` where italics start and begin:
sqrt(pitch × m2 pitch × cell height)
Then I am left with the questions:
What are the units of pitch? Best guess: length units? (Based on: cell height having length units. `m2 pitch` being dimensionaless?
Why do the pitches "obviously make an area" then?
What are the units of metal to pitch? Best guess: dimensionless. (Based on the final units of the sqrt being repoted in length, and the cell height presumably having units of length).
What the units of cell height? Best guess: length units, based on what the variable is called.
Although, even Patreon has this issue, since there is no hard requirement to be showing your work regularly; just more of an expectation due to the design of the system.
Part of this seems to be due to the reality of creative work: you need to be willing to fund failures as much as successes, or you'll end up getting more-of-the-same rather than something new. E.g. existing creators with well-established patron bases can feel pressured to make more-of-the-same, rather than experimenting, leading to their burnout.
The other part of it seems to honestly be gullibility (on the part of backers) and lack of focus on realistic, achievable goals ("go small, then incrementally bigger") from those seeking funding. The normalization/glorification of advertising culture (e.g. "fake it till you make it") is a non-trivial contributor to this issue, ultimately making it difficult to distinguish between grifters and people who drank the kool-aid.
"Correct technological choice": I think relational algebra style APIs (a la Polars) are the "correct technological choice" here. SQL is just a tool to express relational algebra, and I'm not sure it's a good one.