jhgb

12 ms·

121.
by jhgb 4y ago
Ah yes, they're the curse of SQL. Still doesn't seem to be a reason to not squash them out as much as feasible within the constraints of SQL.
122.
by jhgb 4y ago
But the order of attributes in the presentation of the result relation has nothing to do with physical layout of base relvars -- primarily because any relationship between the two is purely coincidental. The vast majority of useful queries
123.
by jhgb 4y ago
Why would you be trying to prevent the DB from reordering the data? You're not supposed to have better knowledge of what's good for your use case than an RDBMS that can collect usage statistics on queries and such. Ditto for com
124.
by jhgb 4y ago
> That data is stored in a similar order on disk (is this still true?). There should be no requirement for this. Columns in relations are not conceptually ordered, so it shouldn't matter for the things you're doing with the dat
125.
by jhgb 4y ago
> It doesn't just mean "unknown". It can also mean "no value". Isn't the canonical representation of known -no-value an absence of a tuple? Like as opposed to saying "There exists an employee X who wor
126.
by jhgb 4y ago
If you're suggesting a reaction today, then I need to point out that globally, over the past decade, new renewable generation was being installed roughly 15x faster than new nuclear generation. So even that is yet another difference fr
127.
by jhgb 4y ago
Perhaps. But saying with 20/20 hindsight of the 2020s that people of the 1970s should have made momentously different decisions for the future of whole national industries for decades to come doesn't feel any less arrogant to me.
128.
by jhgb 4y ago
Germany has neither a nuclear military-industrial complex like the French do nor the opportunity to waste copious amounts of energy the way Norwegians do, so I fail to see how references to those countries are in any way relevant for German
129.
by jhgb 4y ago
Uh...are we still talking about Germany? Because in Germany they clearly weren't, unlike in case of France. And Norway's absolutely prodigious consumption of electricity (quadruple amount per capita) even underlines it: electrical
130.
by jhgb 4y ago
If twenty years ago it was decided in law that X would shut down about now, and X is shutting down now, then I don't see a reason to not say that the decision to shut down X now comes from a law twenty years ago.
131.
by jhgb 4y ago
It turned out that "strongest economies in the world" are like that by literally destroying the world's ecosystems. If you have any idea how "wear a warmer sweater" is a bad suggestion until we make it so that the d
132.
by jhgb 4y ago
> Germany's shutting those down because of the Fukushima disaster. No, they're not. The shutdown decision was made (and put into binding law!) almost ten years before Fukushima.
133.
by jhgb 4y ago
You won't heat homes using electricity more efficiently than with direct heaters without significantly redesigning them, so all this would do would be using even more primary energy than before. This is going to happen over time as nZE
134.
by jhgb 4y ago
"Excuses"? If you know that your company shuts down one year from now, why would you be ordering spare parts for five years into the future? Especially if you've known that date for twenty years like Germans did?
135.
by jhgb 4y ago
> Can you back that up? To me it looks like only 5% of uranium is in Russia It's not about mining. You need to enrich uranium first, and a massive portion of world's industrial capacity for that is in Russia: https:/&#x2F
136.
by jhgb 4y ago
No, it doesn't. The nuclear plants were never a substitute for residential gas heaters and the chemical industry consuming copious amounts of natural gas. Any shortfall from the nuclear shutdown can be covered by the underutilized coal
137.
by jhgb 4y ago
And? What is the relevance of that? Not shutting them off wouldn't in any way influence the industrial and heating heating usages of natural gas in Germany which are the main problem.
138.
by jhgb 4y ago
To me they're the timekeeping equivalent of pole vaulting yourself onto the second floor. A normal person would use stairs, but it's impressive and even cheered on by a bunch of onlookers when someone can do it just by jumping on
139.
by jhgb 4y ago
No, the fringe usage half a globe away still doesn't make it relevant if I'm asking how some things are called in a Middle-Eastern language. Likewise, the Czech word "Polák" for a citizen of Poland with no alternative
140.
by jhgb 4y ago
In real life it sounds like we're being advised to prefer cocaine over LSD. ;)
141.
by jhgb 4y ago
I'm quite obviously asking about Arabic as it is being used in the Middle East. I've even spelled it out, and so did the comment I was responding to. The irrelevant South African fringe usage was also already mentioned in the co
142.
by jhgb 4y ago
Engineering woo effect, perhaps? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo
143.
by jhgb 4y ago
Not many people in the US or the EU speak Arabic. If I'm ignorant of it and you're a speaker of Arabic, then why don't you just enlighten me? Since when is removing one's ignorance not the point of asking questions?
144.
by jhgb 4y ago
I don't see the wrong usage there, assuming that "Wrong root word. You're thinking of kaffir." would have been correct. Which it seems to be the case to me since both "Wrong root word." and "You're th
145.
by jhgb 4y ago
If it's true as you seem be indicating even in your case, then I don't see how it's being hyperbolic. "True but sad" still includes "true".
146.
by jhgb 4y ago
This must be culturally specific since where I live there's absolutely nothing even just unfortunate about the word "kefír".
147.
by jhgb 4y ago
> Wolfram deserves some kudos for that. I feel like the other drug dealers in history might be offended at not getting at least some credit here for inventing this method.
148.
by jhgb 4y ago
Why is it derogatory? And what is the non-derogatory alternative to that word in Arabic?
149.
by jhgb 4y ago
Could you point out where do you see such wrong usage here?
150.
by jhgb 4y ago
> semicolons are awful punctuation I'm glad that someone finally admitted that C is crap. Clearly we need fewer C compilers, not more of them! Embrace Smalltalk!

More ›