That’s only true in the public Zeitgeist, there is a huge preference among portions of the workforce for male leadership stated or unstated. This is not a good thing. I literally worked with a guy who was about to quit because a woman would boss him around and she was about 10,000 times as qualified as he was

then again, how good a manager would she have made if she was bossing around colleagues to the point of them quitting?

Management is not just about qualification, it's also about the human aspect.

I have seen enough toxic femineity at work to say it is actually a thing, on par with toxic masculinity.

Or perhaps this guy perceived normal, appropriate management that he would have been perfectly fine with had it come from a man as “bossy” when it came from a woman.

or perhaps she was just a toxic colleague, with tons of experience in a narrow field that he did not have and making colleagues leave was just her thing.

Vote me down all you want, women are just as capable as men in every way, including the wrong, toxic ones

All of you misread would and put your own spin on it. She wasn’t even hired yet, and he had never met her.

That’s a hilarious idea. Given the Supreme Court of today, afraid of legislating from the bench? Are you serious?

Yes. The majority of their decisions seem to bear that out. While the current court isn’t run by strict constitutionalists, the direction of the court seems to be in favor of rolling back previous precedent that overstepped constitutional boundaries and restoring constitutional balances based on originalist interpretations. This doesn’t please anybody, of course, because both political “teams” have lost major fights in this process.

Not that every decision bears this out, of course, and it’s also a slow process.

IMO this restoration is a necessary step in restoring the operation of the constitution. As a country we need to decide if we’re going to actually follow it (including making use of the long-dead amendment process) or throw it out (amounting to a revolution). Selectively ignoring parts of it depending on who is in power, or based on whatever the bipartisan intelligence/defense agenda requires, is unworkable and needs to end ASAP.

Most of the contentious SCOTUS decisions these days are the opposite of that, where they defer to Congress or the executive.

Yes. Why do you disagree?

Which is something like less than one percent of websites, and this technology is deployed much, much more widely.

Again, correct. But “don't do this if you don't really need to do this” is rather pointless to say, hence is being downvoted, because people already being that sensible don't need to hear it, and those who are not are unlikely to listen. The comment is just noise, as unnecessary as the unnecessary animation and other gumf that it is railing against.

Well, that makes one of us. Replacing deterministic processes that work with lossy processes makes no sense. You’re literally reinventing the wheel every single time, what are you talking about?

It's because things change, things break, they are misconfigured etc. Yes, if you have perfect deterministic tools in an unchanging and perfect environment, sure. But the deterministic tools need constant maintenance, fixing, reconfiguring, adapting to external changes, dealing with unexpected failure types etc. Not saying you should use LLMs for everything, but LLMs equipped with tool calling can often fix things. And they can also fold it back to a robustified script. That's the strongest use case. LLM checking errors, fixing the scripts, and the routine runs are via those scripts. It just checks that everything ran to completion or what kind of hiccup happened. I know this sounds terrifying from a job security perspective, but it's going to be a wild ride for all of humanity.

> LLM checking errors, fixing the scripts, and the routine runs are via those scripts.

ppl are not doing this right now . right?

if ai can really do this then we dont even need all this glue software . everyone can just use lovable.

> what are you talking about?

oh i mean 'now i am not sure if it would be ridiculed'

Look at the mayor of London. Same shit, different city.

Only if it was not something they constantly already do.

That’s because fundamentally you need those strategic items to have space to do those particular detail items. If you have the best strategy and no execution, you can probably hire for that. If you have no strategy and decent execution, you are driving the Titanic into the iceberg.

Many databases do not actually offer this or pretend to offer this, but it is really just one thing.

Are you referring to save points as the "pretend to offer this"? If so, why wouldn't they work? If not, what are you referring to?

Literally:

    BEGIN TRAN
    BEGIN TRAN
    COMMIT TRAN
    ROLLBACK TRAN

Yes, but what part about that is pretend? Is there a db that doesn't do the right thing and roll back the outer transaction? If so, can you name it?

For those that don't, it's almost always modeled in the connection-library as "hold it open until commits == opens, or roll back if any roll back". Or it's often easy to build this yourself, around the library.

Which works entirely fine in most cases. You're at greater risk of phantom reads and general "stuff that can occur while you hold open a transaction", but if you're not handling that correctly then you're not handling that correctly. It's only a matter of volume, not existence.

... with a clear exception for cases where you do need to truly end a transaction, like if you're relying on some other thread to do something on a different transaction that needs to see your changes, or when you risk a deadlock somewhere due to not releasing your lock. Those are both a risky patterns for a lot of reasons though, and worth avoiding at design-time if at all possible.

That’s a hilarious comment in the world where companies are getting hacked left and right and consumer data is widely available from how many pieces of software have piss poor security. You might work at companies as where dumb bureaucrats have a tight grip on things, but in most of the world, security practices are not holding us back, they simply don’t exist.

The the op of this thread is really security clueless. The moment you're in most networks you can move laterally and get whatever you want. Locking these systems down and securing them is very difficult work. After C levels, developers are the worst at security in companies.

There’s a bunch of features in compatibility, performance, and cost reasons not to choose these cloud hosted managed databases.