Interesting, thanks for mentioning that. I've always wondered about the origins of the name, never found anything, but now with your mention of "mineral" I was able to find this:
> (Hipp) How do I pronounce the name of the product? I say S-Q-L-ite, like a mineral.
> But I also hear a lot people say, "Sequel lite and SQL lite." You know, I don't care. Whatever comes off of your tongue easily is fine with me.
How do you know it's not SQL-lite with the single L serving a double role?
Common pronunciations allow you to stay perfectly ambiguous about where the L goes, which aligns quite well with the name as spelled. If you do it right, nobody can tell if you're saying sequel-ite or sequel-lite or seque-lite on the one hand, or S-Q-L-ite or S-Q-L-lite or S-Q-lite on the other.
AFAIK there is no official word on how the name is intended to be read or said.
I think we're all aware of that. The post you're responding to essentially made the same point you did, but to someone who thought it appropriate to express their love for realism in a much less mature way.
I was never part of one, but in case nobody with more experience chimes in: I'm assuming the large battles involve a lot of sitting around, pressing the occasional button to change to the next designated target, while stuck in massive game-time dilation:
> False: Select PEP 249-compliant transaction behaviour, implying that sqlite3 ensures a transaction is always open.
This means you don't get to control the isolation level of the transaction, because [1]:
> sqlite3 uses BEGIN DEFERRED statements when opening transactions.
If you want to use `IMMEDIATE` or `EXCLUSIVE` isolation level[2] for your sqlite transaction using the new flag, you have to set `autocommit=True` to be able to open the transaction yourself with `.execute("BEGIN IMMEDIATE")`.
However, with `autocommit=True`, the connection's `.commit()` and `.rollback()` methods will *silently do nothing* and you have to execute the respective raw SQL yourself to commit or abort your manually-opened transaction. This also concerns the context-manager behavior of the connection object, which will not commit or abort manual transactions on context exit in this case.
So, the autocommit flag becomes a little complicated and foot-gunny if you want more precise control over when exactly other readers or writers should get blocked by sqlite.
They're probably talking about the addition of the autocommit flag, which hides more fine-grained transaction control in favor of more uniform behavior across multiple databases:
Chunks of good advice, tossed and blended into a soup of verbiage generated by a helpful LLM. It sounds smooth and resists being read at the same time. I hope we can get to the point where actually good, helpful prose is generated more often than not.
The article also addresses why this is not the chosen solution. It's pretty much the first one you'd think of: all kinds of existing software (that can be between client and server and out of their control) already handle GET bodies in all kinds of incompatible ways, because the existing standard says they're meaningless and "shouldn't" be included. The idea is to not break people's stuff, so they don't rugpull the established standard.
There's usually a reason why the simplest solution that pops into one's head is not "just" used by the people who put a lot more thought into it. Not always, but it can be useful to try to come up with it.
I think it's a useful heuristic, but if you apply it too harshly, you'll deprive yourself of interesting perspectives. It's also hard to correct, because you don't get to know how many false positives it produces. So, it should be used with care.
People may make mistakes in an area they have less expertise in than the reader, and still be able to provide a view from a side the reader knows less about. Also, it's not difficult enough to mistake a deviation from a dearly held belief for a faux-pas in somebody else's thinking.
You can argue that it's still worth it to apply the filter strictly, because there's so much chaff to cut through; but it's not always done with enough appreciation for how much it may tend to reinforce one's own bubble. I also suspect that the more trigger-happy people would not be too understanding or even introspective when having that same filter applied to them.
Having this filter is useful and necessary. It's just that when it can be observed, because the people applying it post about it, it often seems to be the overzealous kind of dismissal.
But that's not were the confusion is created. I don't even see the status field on mobile without scrolling. You don't have a missing status field, you have too much confusion, because the field and/or the color have a placement mismatch.
Using only color to communicate the status is confusing. If you want to communicate something, it's often best to just say it. The color can be a visual reinforcement of that. Then your explanation would not be needed.
Okay, I've reflected on our conversation. Please let me try to explain my position. At the end, you'll have my answer to what you wanted me to ask myself.
You have your opinion, and you're free to express it. However, you chose to express it in a way commonly used by the enemies of democracy and liberty. That does not make you one of them, not at all. But it should give you pause. Why do they say the things they do? They are after a certain effect. Is this the effect that you also want?
They use it, have used it, are using it, because they know it's effective in undermining trust in the system and because it helps their agenda of replacing it with something much worse. This has worked in the past, and we can see it working in the present. Yes, the system is flawed, but your way of expressing opinions about it is demonstrably not helping to make it better, on the contrary.
As I tried to make clear, there are constructive and destructive ways to "point out problems". That's why I asked you to consider the danger of your words. So, of course you can provide opinions, but you are also responsible for their effect, and if you do care, you should be mindful of it. Criticism is fine and necessary, but a I said before, what conclusion it promotes matters a great deal.
My goal in this conversations was mainly to not let your position stand undisputed, to show up how unfairly reductive it is, and how much that only serves to undermine what we should all care for.
I did not intend to insult you. I did point out what I perceive as flaws and real-life consequences of your position, and I turned your heavy insinuation of naivete back at you. I stand by the stance that comments like yours above are problematic, for the reasons given.
I do realize you feel insulted nonetheless. I also realize that my comments were lacking empathy for your position. In the end, I do care more about pushing back this narrative than about how you feel, but maybe that's the wrong way to go about it. My words were harsh, and you must have felt bad. For that, I feel bad, and I'm sorry.
Differences of opinion exist, and discussing them and their consequences is a necessary part of dealing with them. This is in fact what peace looks like, and how you defend and preserve it: by talking it out. And having said that, I again wish you a nice day.
> You think people pointing out problems in a broken system are the problem.
Not what I said, nor does it follow from what I said. Also, not really what you were doing. There's a difference between pointing out problems, or using the existence of problems to trash the reputation of something or someone. Problems are easy to find. It's a convenient excuse to hide behind. But in the end, you can tell from how things are being presented and contextualized, and from what conclusion is actually being promoted.
I'm not going to keep discussing this with you. I think I've done enough to counter this corrosive narrative, no matter where it comes from.
If you're genuine and you do in fact care, you might want to ponder what you're doing, and if it's making things better or worse.
Well, you could stop undermining what you seem to care for.
You don't have to "wrongly imagine" anything. Everyone not doing what's "best for society" is how the world works, authoritarianism and the rule of rich elites is the default that everything wants to regress to. There are only ever islands where people managed to push this back towards the corners and make room for more of us.
Human societies have taken millenia to come up with a system (or a few similar systems) which have a chance of holding things somewhat at bay. Is it perfect? Far from it. Does it work? Just honestly compare how things are for disadvantaged or even normal, ordinary people in places that work differently. Could it be better? You bet, there's lots to criticize. But notice that you _can_ criticize. Usually, elsewhere, you can't. Is it getting worse? Yes. The lesson is that you have to keep defending this system that gives you a chance to hold people to account and remove them from power.
Comments like yours above, which claim that everything is maximally bad and rigged, do nothing but help things decay further. "There's nothing that can be done! It's the same everywhere! Why even try?" That's how you get other people to stop caring, too, and then the real assholes take over. You're playing right into their hands. You think it's already as bad as it gets? You think you're no longer naive? Well, then maybe you're doing this on purpose; or you're just a new kind of naive. Either way: you are an active part of this problem.
It's stupidly obvious. Politics is about how we organize government and distribute power to solve the problems of living together as a society of individuals. "Big" vs "small" government is a particular way of interpreting one aspect of that. It's an important aspect and a useful perspective, but even if taken at face value it completely neglects other important things like the rules for making policy and their actual content. Of course, the face value of big vs small has become a mask for something else.
But if you've spent the time since your teens to come to the opposite conclusion in spite of everything going on around, then I suspect there will be very little I can say to you that will make sense to you.
There's vastly more to politics than that. There's even more to "small" vs "big" government than that, or to who really promises and delivers what. This convenient reduction to handy little words obscures all that, to the point where it stops mapping to reality in a meaningful way. It's a fictional abstraction.
If anything, your question reduces to making one party sound incompetent or deceitful, I don't know if that's intended. (And considering that aspect of the party is another fun can full of real-life worms.)
> (Hipp) How do I pronounce the name of the product? I say S-Q-L-ite, like a mineral.
> But I also hear a lot people say, "Sequel lite and SQL lite." You know, I don't care. Whatever comes off of your tongue easily is fine with me.
> (Q) But the official correct way is S-Q-L-ite?
> (Hipp) Yes, like a mineral.
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/the-changelog/why-sqlit...
So, he means SQL-ite, but doesn't want to proscribe this as the only way people should say it. I like all of that.
Maybe we should follow his example.