People take issue with the CEO's lack of skin in the game. It's akin to saying this hurts me more than it hurts you while not making any real sacrifices. But the core of this issue runs deeper, it's endemic throughout corporate America and enabled by America culture which places no public shame for the lack of integrity or honor by those at the top.
What's the point of ULID again? People say one use case of UUIDs is that clients are able to generate the (random) primary key. Fair enough, I guess... Then they say autoincremental ids are bad because it could give indication about business activity (like how many orders have been done in a time frame). But with ULID or UUIDv7, this "benefit" is gone to some degree because timestamp is included.
If client-generation is not needed, then UUID is stupid to begin with, because any incremental id can be transformed ("encrypted") to arbitary different format (which hides the real id). Also UUID is usually much larger: Waste of db/index space, degraded performance. But I guess if people push everything in the cloud, they don't even realize they are paying more than needed...
Conclusion: I don't understand what you people are trying to "solve". All those different UUID versions leads me to believe the issue is not the id, but developer confusion.
> But with ULID or UUIDv7, this "benefit" is gone to some degree because timestamp is included
Including the timestamp only tells someone the time the UUID was generated. Unlike incrementing numeric IDs (which can simply be subtracted from one another to measure a change in database records), there’s no way to meaningfully count change over time.
> any incremental id can be transformed ("encrypted") to arbitary different format (which hides the real id)
Easier said than done… You then have the overhead of encrypting/decrypting every client-facing ID before querying the database. You’ll also need to code workarounds in many frameworks, to bypass conventions where they expect keys in URL paths (for example).
> Also UUID is usually much larger: Waste of db/index space, degraded performance
With older UUIDs, sure, but sorted ones (like ULIDs) have consistent prefixes, allowing for very efficient indexing and querying with a binary tree search.
> there’s no way to meaningfully count change over time.
You are right, should have finished my morning coffee first =) I guess for client-side generation it makes sense then. But how often is that really needed? I don't know...
As for the other points. I still don't buy that. For example implementing UUIDs vs implementing the transformation: CPU cost is negligible (you don't need to use cryptographic secure cypher). UUID might be a little simpler to implement, but combined with space and performance savings it's well worth it: 16 byte vs 4/8 byte (which might be stored multiple times in related tables) - it adds up and fills resources. Again I understand, most people don't seem to care about that, because they were born into cloud culture and have no clue what they are doing in terms of efficiency money/resource-wise.
You mean combining logically (or even physically) separated databases, collapsing their tuples into one? Why would you do that, and how often does that occur?
> first hand support across various databases/systems
UUIDs? Of the RDBMS most likely to be used (MySQL, Postgres, SQLite) only Postgres has a UUID type. The others store them as strings (please no) or binary types. MariaDB and Oracle have UUID types, and SQL Server has a GUID (essentially the same thing) type, but those are all less commonly seen.
What does have universal support is integers. They scale just fine (PlanetScale uses them [0] internally), and you can use them in a distributed system – if you even need one in the first place – via a variety of methods: interleaved ranges or a central server allocating chunks are two popular methods that come to mind.
Sometimes various but similar database get smashed together when companies merge. Or when putting all the things in a "data-lake". Like inventory lot IDs or transaction IDs from 100s of stores local database uploaded to the corporate global DB (eg: Albertsons, Kroger, Walmart)
> Again I understand, most people don't seem to care about that, because they were born into cloud culture and have no clue what they are doing in terms of efficiency money/resource-wise.
They have no clue about how computers work, full stop. Sure, they know programming languages, but generally speaking, if you ask them about IOPS, disk or network latency, NUMA, cache lines, etc. they’ll tell you it doesn’t matter, and has been abstracted away for them. Or worse, they’ll say sub-optimal code is fine because shipping is all that matters.
There is certainly a difference between sub-optimal and grossly un-optimized code. Agonizing over a few msec outside of hot loops is probably not worthwhile from an efficiency standpoint, but if it's trivial to do correctly, why not do it correctly? One recent shocking example I found was `libuuid` in its various forms. util-linux's implementation [0] at its most recent tag is shockingly slow in larger loops. I'm fairly certain it's due to entropy exhaustion, but I haven't looked into it enough yet.
MacOS uses arc4random [1] (which for Linux, is in glibc as of v2.36, but you can get it from libbsd-dev otherwise), and it's much, much faster (again, on large loops).
I made some small C programs and a shell runner to demonstrate this [2].
> You then have the overhead of encrypting/decrypting every client-facing ID before querying the database.
As opposed to the overhead of generating a UUID? It may be fast, but it’s still overhead.
> code workarounds in many frameworks … they expect keys in URL paths
I personally despise this practice, not least of which because then your URL has a UUID (because it’s always UUIDs) in it, which is ugly; it also gives ammunition to the argument of using v4 so as to not expose time-based information. I still doubt that the latter matters, and think that it’s a hypothetical dreamt up by the same kind of people who shard their database and use Kafka at tiny startups because “we might need it.”
> very efficient indexing
You are of course correct that the sorted prefix helps the B+tree immensely, but you can’t get around the 16 bytes (or worse, if stored as a string) vs. 8 bytes or smaller for other types. Despite what people seem to think, this does add up, it does impact your buffer pool, and it does slow down queries.
Why does an AGI need to have any knowledge about our reality? The principle behind an AGI should work just as well on a made up world where those puzzles play a part in.
A concept that doesn’t relate to an aspect of reality, either directly or abstracted from basic concepts that directly relate, is meaningless and arbitrary. There is no way for intelligence to grasp it, let alone do something with it.
To put it another way, a thing that solves puzzles without an understanding of reality is a calculator. When it solves a problem, it is the creator’s intelligence solving the problem, not its own.
I agree that the puzzles alone are not enough, that's why I wrote "in a made up world where those puzzles play a part in".
We are not looking for a superhuman, but for the (or a) mechanism of intelligence, which we can then transfer into a superhuman (into the real world). But the mechanism itself should work in an artifically made and very constrained world too.
The thing is: Even if one can disable this "feature"... Who guarantees that Microsoft will not enable it again by some update or suddenly introduce a remote version which is enabled by default?
Microsoft can not be trusted anymore because regulators failed in the past to properly punish companies for dirty behavior.
> Customers are not in a position to judge how much of a threat this might pose to their actual safety.
I'm not so sure about that. I knew the statistics, and I paid full attention in the pre-jump class. A colleague of mine who went with us did not pay attention and shattered one leg from the ankle to the hip. Fortunately, he made a full recovery.
I don't know why any intelligent person would regard jumping out of an airplane as "safe".
There's obv something wrong at the The Lodi Parachute Center, but bars onsite to the remaining private airports are common. eg Lake Paris. "We did not witness the pilot consuming alcohol" is an insinuation, indicating a lack of supporting facts.
They are new names for existing crimes that were invented to lessen the penalties.
Additionally, enforcement is extremely weak, and even with these lesser penalties, police will do everything they can to avoid dealing them out, even when they apply.
This is by design and it wouldn't make sense otherwise. It would be crazy if 50 legal jurisdictions just happened to all reach the same wrong conclusion. Driving a car non-negligently carries an inherent risk that you will kill someone and this risk is borne by all drivers. And we've decided that this risk is acceptable and legal to take on. You are explicitly allowed to do a thing that has a non-zero chance of killing someone else.
It would be ridiculous if we locked up the people who happened to kill others while not driving particularly dangerously. Justice is not being served by locking up the unfortunate unlucky sods while everyone else is engaging in the exact same risky behavior. It's why cops are unlikely to go after someone who say killed someone while speeding a not crazy amount; the thousands of drivers that go by every other day are doing the same thing. But they will throw the book at the statistical outliers of dangerous driving.
Don’t forget that the bar for negligence that also allows random distracted soccer moms, burned out and exhausted workers, and the 25% percentile of the bell curve to drive isn’t very high.
But if those folks couldn’t drive in the US with the way things are currently setup socioeconomically, everyone would have a huge problem.
And it usually isn’t that big of a deal - or at least emotionally doesn’t feel like an unreasonable risk, which is all society cares about.
That's true for virtually everything. Most drivers have no idea how much danger they are in or may cause since our tests are a joke. Put them on a skid pad and/or autocross course (TireRack had a defensive driving AutoX program), and then they might start to learn about the vehicle dynamics.
Most drivers have a reasonable estimate of how common and serious car crashes are, since we drive and know people who drive and therefore have firsthand and secondhand experience with the matter
The same probably can't be said for most skydivers (I assume most are first timers ticking off a bucket list item.)
By that same logic the skydiver had a reasonable estimate of how dangerous it was based on the stereotypical view of the activity (and his prayer before doing it).
The point isn't about if you think something is dangerous, but how dangerous it is. There are a bunch of near accidents and minor accidents because people fail to realize their limitations and the vehicle dynamics. I constantly see people texting, tailgating, and not understanding the law (right of way isuses). Many people are wildly overconfident, showing they don't really know the risks and engage in risky behavior that they aren't even aware of.
Stereotypes probably aren't a good basis for reasonable estimates. The average "I would never skydive" person probably severely overestimates the risks. Somebody who does decide to skydive... I can't say. But unless they looked up the statistics I think it's fair to say they have less information about it than an average driver.
Also, drivers know all about near misses. Their propensity to near miss is based off their knowledge that major accidents are quiet infrequent for most drivers (most will never be in a life-threatening crash, and minor crashes are a "once in several years" occassion for most drivers.)
"Stereotypes probably aren't a good basis for reasonable estimates."
Yet stereotypes are exactly what you're talking about when it comes to anecdotal evidence in your prior comment. Most people don't think about the what ifs, or possible outcomes. They're making stereotypes based on the experiences they do have. Stuff like how dangerous driving in the snow is if your a southerner or a northerner.
"Also, drivers know all about near misses."
I've seen some rather oblivious drivers who didn't realize how close they came to injury or death. The statistics for either activity isn't particularly helpful because individual scenarios can be wildy different.
Personal experience aren't stereotypes. Stereotypes about skydiving by somebody who has no experience and knows nobody with any experience are not comparable to having said experience. I think you're being very silly here because you gave an axe to grind against cars.
I don't have an axe to grind against cars. I'm usually commenting in defense of cars. However, improving the driving tests could improve safety. Most crashes are the result of poor judgement or a lack of understanding the rules.
"Personal experience aren't stereotypes."
How do you think stereotypes start? It's personal experience coupled with group think. A perfect example is how people think nice sunny days are safer for driving. Yet in reality they are risky because people pay less attention and drive faster than in the rain. So yes, there are common stereotypes of the safety of various conditions.
I'm from the UK, but took my driving test in California. The California test did feel like a joke - it lasted 15 minutes and involved 3 left turns, 3 right turns, 3 crossings of an intersection, reversing in a straight line and parking in a bay.
The UK driving test takes more than twice as long and involves way more maneuvers - though it looks like they've dropped three point turns and reversing left around a corner according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_driving_test#Ma...
Oops! For what it's worth, I interpreted GGP in a way that was clearly wrong in hindsight. I thought they meant "our vehicle safety tests are a joke". I edited the GP.
This is stupid argument. He/She was talking about something relative, that is, relative to what it was 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. You can't come along and pick some worse example from another place.
With the same logic you could say wages don't need to increase for the next 20 years, or police can be defunded because more crime is not so important, because the 3rd world is off way worse...
The comment I replied to said "it's feeling more like a third world country", I replied "no it's not even close to an actual third world country". I don't see how you could then derive that I meant "therefore it's not important".
Are third world countries the only place where things need fixing?
The post you replied to said it is GETTING WORSE. Paris is getting worse in his lifetime, in his expirience. You can't then come along and say
> I would argue that the relative freedom of movement forces residents in Europe to confront the inequality in their everyday lives.
Imagine you see China today, let's say Shenzhen skyline. 20 years in future you go there and all lights are out, windows are broken and homeless people everywhere, streets are filled with dirt and woman are scared to go out when it gets dark. If I then tell you "well, looks like some poor people moved there, everyone is moving closer together, that's why we see some problems here"..... Nooo! It would be some massive government failure that is responsible.
I quoted the phrase "it's feeling more like a third world country" verbatim, which is the part I have issue with. I also said "I get the sentiment", meaning that I understand what they were trying to express (that it's getting worse). I don't know what you were disagreeing with though?
> You can't then come along and say
Of course I can. That is also my experience. According to OP many third world countries they visited seem to be handling this better than places like Paris, but imo it's just because they have the power to sweep the problem under the rug. I don't think that is the solution we should aim for.
Oh and btw
> You can't come along and pick some worse example from another place.
I didn't pick them, OP did. I literally would not have replied to OP had they not invoked the "turning to 3rd world country" drivel.
> but imo it's just because they have the power to sweep the problem under the rug
OP talks about decline in a certain place. It has NOTHING to do with sweeping problems under the rug. Why not? Because the "under the rug sweeping" didn't happen 20 years ago either! So why did things get worse, instead of better? Because of bad policies, number #1 being bad migration policies which is not merit based. This happend in whole western Europe and turns cities into what OP described, while eastern Europe cities remain what was Paris 20 years ago. So please stop denying OP or anyone to say "wow, it got so much worse here over the years"....
Now the reason I write in an angry way and the reason I'm so upset, is that there is no solution to these problems. Quite the opposite, it will only get worse. But that's another topic. So sorry if my words were a little aggressive.
Edit: I guess that's basically what you are saying. The other comments confuse me!
reply