alter_eco123
I'm not sure what you mean.
Is it not obvious that politicians don't want to bust their biggest (potential) campaign contributors for GDPR violations?
Isn't it obvious that we don't have any more privacy now than before GDPR, because governments are still spying the shit out of us all?
In light of that, is it not obvious that GDPR's real goal is something other than improving our privacy?
Do you genuinely think governments (or EU bureaucrats) actually care about us or our privacy? If not, why would you think GDPR was devised for our benefit?
And gosh, it sure makes it more difficult for small businesses to stay viable, and wouldn't it be nice for big corporations to have fewer potential competitors/disruptors around?
The only real solution is to stop letting these companies invade your privacy, by ceasing to use their services.
That doesn't mean "THIS.. IS.. STALLMAN!", but it will be less convenient than letting them continue.
I'm guessing typical implementations would involve a lot of caching.
It would be nice to hear about people's experiences though.
So how did markets exist at all when the Fed was created? By your logic, they would have "gone off a cliff and never come back" long before that.
> When the government stimulates the already hot market with lax taxes and high spending it’s like pouring liquid oxygen onto a flame
Even after all the stimulus so far? No diminishing returns, ever?
Do you think 2% is a good rate for you to be losing your savings' purchasing power? How fast would you like gangrene to spread through your body?
Water that is wet is also dry, and water that is dry is also wet!
> Counter-example: I do it all the time.
No you don't. I mean, sure you can pull numbers out of your ass and pretend to calculate something based on them.
Or you can even explicitly set out to calculate garbage results with garbage inputs, if you insist.
But you're not putting accurate numbers on how much anyone wants anything, because it's all subjective.
> All government choices are forceful interventions, whether a choice to act or not act.
Indeed. That's how ruling over subjects works. I can't parse the latter part though, but whatever.
So what? Somehow PostgreSQL is doing fine despite that.
Which is worse publicity for Cognitect: people publishing bad benchmarks or Cognitect forbidding benchmarks Oracle style?
Of course. But you didn't answer my question.
Let's say someone has an application with 100GB of data in Datomic.
What kind of memory usage should he expect for the "peer" process?
Our current situation might be marginally better than "double borders", but you're probably aware we're headed in a police statey direction all over the world.
It's also a "permission to enter" some other country. But without it, you won't be flying anywhere.
Then you've got visas, which are "permissions to exist" in a certain geographical area (within a certain time-frame).
We've all had a default assumption that we can get a new passport any time, but it's actually never been guaranteed.
Sure, but value works both ways.
"Your salary should represent the value working remotely offers to you"
If it's reasonable for you to think that way, why wouldn't it be reasonable for companies too?
So you kind of have to wonder why Cognitect is going Oracle on us..
The most obvious explanation is that Datomic just doesn't perform well and they don't want people to know.
What does that mean?
And what kind of actual memory usage should people expect with a "big" database?
I don't see why paying for Datomic would be a problem, but if the license is as crazy as it used to be, that's a bit scary.
For example, the license at least used to forbid even saying "Datomic" aloud in public.
Publishing benchmarks was also forbidden, which is a big red flag. If Datomic performs well, wouldn't Cognitect want lots of benchmarks out there? If it doesn't, they wouldn't!
> I must say I often found the setup needlessly complicated. [..] No official way to set up of the whole stack with Docker or Kubernetes for example.
You don't find Kubernetes needlessly complicated? Do you actually need Docker or Kubernetes?
For starters, if you understand that value is subjective, you'll also understand that there's no way to put a number on how much you want something, or precisely how much you'd be willing to pay for it, etc.
You'll also understand that you can't base calculations on something you can't actually quantify, and have no way of accurately measuring..
So yeah, you'll understand that most of what you've been taught is just garbage-in-garbage-out.
As for monetary policy, it's essentially just "a plan for forcefully intervening in an economy", and it doesn't actually happen for the greater good - it's done to benefit the government and their buddies.
As a prime example, who gets access to newly printed thin-air-money at zero interest? Do you want him to buy real assets with "free money", and have you suffer the consequences (of the resulting decrease in your currency's purchasing power)?
Note that people are fine with getting a lower salary in exchange for being able to work remotely.
You could turn it around and say remote employees are "paying their employer what working remotely is worth".
And yet, somehow I still think you're not even trolling!
But if not.. Once again, I have to wonder what the hell is wrong with you people.
By the way, that wasn't an appeal to authority. It was a link to a website where you can educate yourself, without having to take my word for anything.
As for monetary policy, it shouldn't even be a thing.
Can you come up with an argument against Austrian Economics in your own words, or are you content trying to discredit it with an appeal to Milton's authority?
I could argue against the quoted passage but I don't want to bother doing any more work than you have.
How do they think they'll accomplish that, short of taking over the world's governments?
Hipsters gonna hips.
It looks like they've got too much money too, despite being dependent on Google's handouts for survival.
Probably. It's strange how the only school of economic thought that actually corresponds to reality is the one shunned as "pseudoscience" or something.
Go see for yourselves: http://mises.org
What we see in our everyday lives is sometimes called "price inflation", i.e. prices rising, and that can happen disproportionally.
As a US-centric example, computer prices have been gradually decreasing, while healthcare and housing costs have skyrocketed.
So an increase in the supply of money is separate from an increase in "a concentration" of money in a "market area" like healthcare, and productivity and material costs and whatever else factors into prices at any given time.
Of course, an increase in the supply of money factors into prices where ever the money goes.
Most likely, the guy is just highly concerned about what's going on with the company. He may be in danger of losing a lot of money.
Bubblicious times can end suddenly, any moment now.
Yes, you may have seen people saying that for several years. That doesn't mean it's not true.
Look at things and keep asking: "Who benefits?"
If your reporting depends on government subsidies, it's very much not independent.
How so? Is it not a fact that politicians can't be trusted, and that, as you said, the mainstream media is largely about programming the populace?
"Cynisism" is what people call realism when they want you to stop talking about reality.
But you were ostensibly addressing the idea of making it as an independent company - not whether and when revenues and profits might suddenly matter again.
Who's kidding? I doubt you genuinely believe we've reached a new paradigm where bankruptcy is no longer a thing.