Well I suppose I can't miss out on the opportunity to plug my open-source menu bar app for voice-to-text in any app! Going on three years of development, believe it or not.
Ended up with Victor Mono and indeed, I used that font for years before switching to Iosevka.
The game certainly needs a progress bar (I tried on iPhone) and option “there’s no chance in world that I will ever use any of proposed options”.
Funny enough I realized that every several years I oscillate between trying to get readable narrow fonts (that brought me to Iosevka) and wide ones (Azeret Mono, anyone?)
Victor Mono made it fairly late in my rounds, but the "@" character looked terrible as rendered in firefox. It looks a bit better in my terminal, which points out to a downside of this that others have observed.
I’m very conflicted about the message. Author takes a specific , rather simple, oltp case, like joining one table with, essentially, dictionary tables (that most database servers may get into memory and have essentially hash joins) and ends up with generic statement. Yes, in the cas that you’re analyzing it’s fine.
I always was thinking about guide like “joins are expensive” for cases like here’s query in your relational database, here are multi table joins, on top of them there are more complex filters (especially if there are subqueries and/or ), statistics is stale-ish, cardinality estimation goes out of the window and join ordering problem kills you. Especially bad when the same query was working no problem yesterday.
And this is the place when people usually quickly start to study query hints section of their server of choice. (pg_hint_plan)
> … For all
systems we routinely observe misestimates by a factor of 1000 or
more. Furthermore, as witnessed by the increasing height of the
box plots, the errors grow exponentially (note the logarithmic scale)
207
as the number of joins increases [21]. For PostgreSQL 16% of the
estimates for 1 join are wrong by a factor of 10 or more. This per-
centage increases to 32% with 2 joins, and to 52% with 3 joins.
Yeah, the author fails to present his case even in the intro
> A CRDT merge always succeeds by definition, so there are no conflicts in the traditional sense — the key insight is that changes should be flagged as conflicting when they touch each other, giving you informative conflict presentation on top of a system which never actually fails. This project works that out.
It has clear contradiction.
Crdt always succeed by definition, no conflicts in traditional sense so (rephrasing) conflicting changes are marked as conflicted. Emm, like in any other source control?
In fact, after rereading that intro while writing that answer I start suspect at least smell of an ai writing.
The benefit of using a crdt for this is that you can get better merge semantics. Rebase and merge become the same thing. Commits can’t somehow conflict with themselves. You can have the system handle 2 non conflicting changes on the same line of code if you want. You can keep the system in a conflict state and add more changes if you want to. Or undo just a single commit from a long time ago. And you can put non text data in an crdt and have all the same merge and branching functionality.
The deeds are horrifying to read. You can do nothing wrong and die by hands of some piece of shit just because you were at wrong place at wrong time. follow up actions of some are even more sad and scary. Killing another human being meant nothing to some of murderers, like killing a fly.
Those apologies are too little too late. Good riddance.
I have no sympathy for them, and I’m all in for using those for involuntary dangerous drug testing and stuff like that. Those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did.
Yes, those acts are immensely terrible and the apologies feel minuscule by comparison. But I think there's room for more nuance here.
There are multiple reasons we put people in jail:
1. the victims can feel some vindication and retribution
2. other members of society can feel some vindication and retribution and a sense of justice
3. other would-be criminals are detered from committing similar crimes for fear of punishment
4. making people feel safe by showing them criminals are punished
5. removing a bad actor from society
6. reforming a bad actor and reintroducing them into society
Different cultures emphasize different combinations of reasons. For example, ine notable divide is how, in the US, 6. is considered to be the product of a naive mind, whereas in some nordic countries, that goal is taken seriously, with some amount of success (and perhaps at the detriment of other goals).
Anyway, I think your point is that, even if you take the convicts' apologies at face value, goals 1. and 2. remain unfulfilled. And 3. is probably weakened.
I've always felt very alone in my view on this, so don't feel bad if you disagree with me because most people probably do, but I just feel super morally icky when I hear about how part of our justice system is built around "retribution" / "vindication". Like it is one thing to punish, it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment, even if they were victims, I just find it sick. It means as a society we are no better than the perpetrators at the end of the day.
> it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment
I sometimes see this behavior in close friends, and it totally changes the way I see them. I don't know if it's a moral failing on their part, but I just don't experience the desire for vengeance the same way they do, and it really scares me to see how they experience it. What will they do when they start to have mental decline, and (incorrectly) decide they were wronged in some way? :(
I think this thought process is something that only people who have never been wronged can afford. There comes a time in life where the punishment must fit the crime, even if its only to make an example of the criminal.
Life is hard enough, we should deter crimes at every possibility, people are rarely punished for every evil they commit.
See this is my point though, it shouldn't matter what has happened to you, if that matters, then this is 100% emotional and not based on reason or justice.
Of course goal 1 is unfulfilled. Because victims are already dead. Often in very bad way.
I’m sure there are enough people who will consider goals 2, 4 and 5 fulfilled. I disagree with your assessment.
As I said - those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did. You don’t fix them or reintroduce them to society.
I don’t care about abstracts. I care about the fact that some of those scumbags were kept alive longer than their victims lived on this earth, and suffered less in their demise.
One of the man was convicted and put to death for killing his abusive mother. Don't get me wrong, killing is bad, he should feel bad and get punished, but his brother forgave him, he already did 20 (!) years, I don't know who you're protecting by putting him to death. A second mother?
The presumption and occasional assumption of justice system infallibility is breathtakingly arrogant. And then the bloodthirsty, heartless rabble that cheers on more pain and death without regard to actual guilt, incompetency, or innocence. Judge not ...
I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it.
I’m sure that if needed, society can develop necessary framework (declare them “legally dead” or something like that).
I consider the risk of wrongful conviction to be an argument against the death penalty and for the very same reason I'm against performing any kind of inhuman treatment of them (which might be worse than death).
Even if 95% would totally deserve it, I don't think we should just accept that on average 4 innocent people every year are just treated as subhumans just so we can unleash our wrath over those who did truly horrible things.
Death is still a better option rather than being used as lab rat
There should be doubt. There should be due process.
At the same time, I think that with the advancement of the tech (surveillance cameras everywhere, dna tests, the cell tower triangulation and/or mobile device location tracking) there are cases when the guilt can be established without any doubt, and the overall chance of wrongful conviction will drop down.
Hell, have you read the website? One of those pieces of shit made his accomplice to video the murder on the phone.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those convicted are rightfully convicted.
But paint me skeptical as to whether increased use of technology can actually improve the reliability of the proofs.
Imagine a world where deep fakes are much better quality but our system hasn't yet caught up to take that into proper consideration etc.
Serving for life is already a big deal as punishment goes. I'm just asking to not have experimental medical experiments on people. I'm not saying they should walk free
I was thinking about deep fakes and tech advancements. Yes, that will add doubts etc. but you know what? There always will be ways. If somebody was convicted in 2015 most likely there weren’t any deep fakes.
Let’s look at, let’s say, Apple and its tight control over entire hardware and software iPhone stack. Nothing prevents them to announce that starting from iPhone 19 they cryptographically sign the video to ensure that it’s authentic and, at least, the video and sound are what the camera saw. Pro cameras can do it, for Apple it’s even easier, more or less. I’m sure that even on this site there are experts who can design such system that is as secure as we expect from Apple devices. And that thing will slowly spread due to competitive pressures.
—-
Involuntarily drug testing was one of examples that I gave, and you seem to be against. To some it may be extreme, and I completely understand where you’re coming from. To me… as I said - for some examples from the side the murderers surely lost their human privilege. That comment summarized my feelings after reading the website in much more succinct form: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47302490#47305803
Killing 13 month infant, putting bleach on 20 yo gas station employee and setting her on fire, stranding female who was screaming for help during sa. Mate, if your kidney is compatible with someone who is in need, you made your choice way too long ago to have any right to say anything now. Or if there are other uses that will benefit society and humanity as a whole - they are allowed. You are guilty (without doubt and with clear evidence) and sentenced to death. Now you have same amount of rights as cadaver on the table, but probably more uses while you still breathing.
The problem is that I do understand you! I do feel exactly as you do! My lizard brain would like to do all sorts of horrible retaliations to those people who performed such abhorrent acts. I get it, it's natural.
But I think that society should prevent this kind of basic instinctive response to become the way that we collectively handled those monstrosities, mainly because those punishments will be abused against innocent scapegoats.
Also, “in most states, there is no regular procedure for reconsidering the guilt of a convicted defendant after death; that’s one reason why posthumous exonerations are so rare.”
In the end it's more about the appearance of justice than actually performing it. And even in the performance of it, it is still just that: a performance.
If you were to have capital punishment, I'd make prosecutors liable for any knowingly false accusations and the withholding of evidence. And even without that, things could change fast after a few posthumous exonerations when the pitchforks of the deceased's relatives come out for the phony witnesses and corrupt cops.
It's called the "justice system" but how can people be so sure it is? Justice only for the rich or the "club members"? Is it audited? Who gets to hide or shield from it under the guise of "national security?" Are juries being manipulated through the "Reptile Brain trial strategy?"
I recently heard someone say: "Cops kill cops who don't trust other cops?" Why is that? Is a cop killing another cop part of national security too? Who decides? Who do you trust?
The US has executed around hundreds of innocent wrongly convicted people that we're mostly to pretty certain of. And it has thrown a significant fraction of the lives away of around a million who were either innocent or committed very minor infractions, and condemned millions more to near civil death to remain permanently banished from society... untold numbers of innocents swept up to feed the for-profits prison slave labor camps and prevent certain people from voting.
It's always naive, unlearned, horrible people who clamor for "deterrence" and "revenge" via "throw away the key" and executions. Like Trump and the Central Park Five.
95% of your text has nothing to do with what I said and the issue being discussed.
Invoking Trump (that I don’t care about, especially in the context of this conversation) is so cheap... I suggest you to go straight to Godwin law and compare me to literal Hitler, because that’s the quality of your argument (lack of there of, to be precise).
> I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it.
The most horrible people, some of whom were actually innocent?
I understand your emotional desire to (indirectly) hurt them, but the fact is that we can never be 100% sure that they were fully guilty of the acts exactly as described and everyone else in the world was completely innocent.
This means there is a nonzero chance of a miscarriage of justice, and you can't exactly un-execute someone. The only question remaining is: how many tortured and/or killed innocent warrant one monster not being harmed quite as much as your desire for revenge would like?
And there is such small thing as state constitution that explicitly forbids any income tax.
Current government is using it as toilet paper, first by introducing capital gains tax, and now income tax.
I see in another comments though that you argue in bad faith by dismissing opponent arguments as “small amount”, “talking points”. If you don’t have anything real to say, don’t bother to answer.
The state constitution does not forbid an income tax. We both know it is more nuanced than that. Don't accuse me of bad faith in the same comment that you present an inaccuracy in the form of simplification that suits your argument
Neither the state nor any county, city, or other local jurisdiction in the state of Washington may tax any individual person on any form of personal income. For the purposes of this chapter, "income" has the same meaning as "gross income" in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 61.
Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Annuities;
(9) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(10) Pensions;
(11) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(12) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(13) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(14) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Do you have anything else as useful as this? THis is perfect
reply