pradocchia
Somehow I thought symbiosis and cooperation was the accepted model, and competition was just a cultural projection. No?
HOWEVER, given that there is no "and" between 0 & 1, and that 1 & 2 are not like things, I believe most readers will naturally interpret the list as [0, 1, 2] and not [0, [1, 2]]. There are enough other cues that risk of misinterpretation is very low. Anyone who does interpret as [0, [1, 2]] is probably being willfully obtuse.
I expect within 5 years some crotchety old programmer will have build a search engine that penalizes sites for anything more than basic markup. No JS, no CSS, no hints of a CMS. Maybe it's already been done. "Old Skool Search"
And it will still be a poor imitation, because if there is one thing you can't recreate and experience for yourself, it is an internet gone by.
Well, even universal healthcare would have this same effect in America. There would be a veritable Cambrian explosion as hundreds of thousands of people quit their jobs and started doing something interesting, something they cared about. A lot of these interests would turn into businesses and we would all be far the richer for it, never mind the 50% taxes.
I might have used an enum plus a second constructor to wrap the explicit conversation. I guess it depends on what's going on in the rest of the API.
The static quality of enums is only one of their features, and sometimes a hindrance, and it good to have other options.
I assume he didn't want to change the signature of the constructor for whatever reason, but still provide a small measure of discoverability (and tractability). Such things do happen.
In that case, I might have used an enum plus a second constructor to wrap the explicit conversation. Maybe that didn't occur to him, or maybe he had other constraints.
a) the villagers know each other.
b) the researcher is the stranger.
those are the teams, researcher vs players, not player one vs player two. when would it make sense to refuse the split, punish a neighbor, and let the stranger keep his money? never.
Do you have any more on this? I have stumbled across the notion before. Someone typically counters with "but the body maintains a constant pH" and the conversation dissolves.
Stay well.
Yes, I think so too.
Can you elaborate on the first part? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
For many Americans, especially the richer ones that can afford a trip to northern Europe, it would be a case of cognitive dissonance: "gosh everything is so nice here / here is not America / America is the best / I can drive my SUV in America / these Europeans are crammed into tiny cars / thank god I'm an American!" or whatever the chain of reasoning is that gets you back to "thank god I'm an American!" from the world-crushing "gosh everything is so nice here".
What, since the 1990s? No, don't be silly. There may have been a bump due to improved access to basic human knowledge. Is this what you mean?
Ah, now I understand DevOps. Well, the sysadmin who can personally automate his job through programming--this is very productive person.
If I am feeling poor, I pack a lunch, I have dinner at home. If I eat out, I do my part to improve income distribution in America, while routing around rent-seeking intermediaries. You can too.
Am I reading this right?
LEGO is not alone in this regard, but they do create wants out of nothing.
So, you have a child, and this child is happy. Then the child sees a LEGO set, the child wants it, and now the child has an unsatisfied want. Child gets LEGO set, set satisfies synthetic want, child is happy again, and welfare returns to its original state.
Now, you might argue that there is a net increase in welfare from start to finish, since the child may have learned something new or acquired new experiences. Ok, sure, but after the 4th or 5th set, you are going to see some diminishing returns. And in this regard, LEGO's interests and your interests are opposed.
At least on MSSQL, I would expect a query plan like so:
1. Index seek WHERE a = 123, yielding ~100 rows. [1]
2. Bookmark lookup with results from (1), yielding ~100 rows.
3. Filter (2) WHERE b = 42 and project date_column, yielding ~10 rows.
4. Aggregate (3) by date_column, yielding ~10 rows or less.
[1] Important caveat. I interpret this line,
Current situation, selecting about hundred rows out of a million:
....to mean selection of 100 rows from the base table, rather than projection of 100 rows in the result, post-aggregation.
But if he really means a SELECT statement that returns 100 rows, then we have no idea how selective the WHERE clause is, and my answer changes to "The query will be much slower (impact >10%)".
It is already a highly selective query. Adding a 100 bookmark lookups will not cause a material change in performance, unless this query is being executed 1000s of times per second, in which case maybe your real problem lies elsewhere.
kids attend their friends birthdays. candy occasions can work out to several times a month between halloween and new years.
Fact is, as his high holiness Milton Friedman himself argued, business is not a friend of the free market:
Almost every businessman is in favor of free enterprise for everybody else, but special privilege and special government protection for himself. As a result, they have been a major force in undermining the free enterprise system. Stop kidding yourself into thinking you can use the business community as a way to promote free enterprise. Unfortunately, most of them are not our friends in that respect.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/milton-friedman-on-the-diff...
The ubiquity of sugar today discourages moderation by normalizing consumption. It would be like having ash trays in every public space and cigarette ads on tv, with "enjoy responsibly" as the tag line.
The general theme should be, "how do I make my database do less work?" followed by a list of techniques, including "pre-aggregate to reduce volume". In this case, the pre-aggregates are in-line. Whether in-line pre-aggregates are appropriate will depend on context, just as you say.
In SQL Server, aside from recursion, CTEs are purely syntactic sugar and thus a tool for organizing code. Whereas in Postgres, due to the optimization boundary, they are a tool for query tuning. If you rewrite a query in Postgres using CTEs just to clean it up, you are doing it wrong, since the CTEs will also affect the planner.
San Francisco has long been filling up with noobs...but now we face the most dangerous, the most egregious and blandest of them all...people with lots of money.
NOBODY can square-up a joint like rich people.