ActiveRecord is Ruby's nigh unassailable superpower for webdev. A few jobs back my last act in that role was moving all DB access from a separate Scala microservice into a Rails minilith, saving many, many lines of code and network round trips.
Ditto... I really enjoy Django's ORM (makes the trivial tasks dead-easy and steps out of the way when needed) and would like to know if it can be even better by borrowing ideas from ActiveRecord.
This comes up a lot. But it's wrong, or at least incomplete. People who want to live in their house don't want the value of that house to go up, because then their taxes go up.
There are laws like California's prop 13 which allow some demographics of consistent voters and home buyers to have their cake and eat it too by insulating them from property tax increases as their home value increases.
How many people in this day have actually decided "Hey, I want to be in this one house for the rest of my life."; moreover how many are actually presented with that option? I live in a boom town so I can't really say one way or another, but it strikes me that very few people born of recent generations have the impetus or place enough faith in the systems they're reliant on to yield the security necessary for that sort of commitment - and it's not a new development, and it's not necessarily specific to my locale, but is rather a shift in principals of business and government.
So while I understand your argument I'm reticent to accept it on the basis of the concerns mentioned above. Settling down permanently is not the same proposition it was fifty years ago. My grandma grew up in Denver, the rapidity that it grew with was apparently astounding and that growth drastically altered the culture and the landscape, what were once dirt roads are now median-divided 3-lanes with cookie cut houses lining them as far as the eye can see. If you can imagine not wanting to live there with the rapidly accelerating growth and the headaches that come with it, you're not alone.
There are also economic concerns, which can be highly unpredictable, and these are considerations I'm sensitive to. I've watched commodity fluxuations result in massive layoffs time and time again. When given the requisite information to make a decision on whether or not to sell, it's plain to see that it's a benefit to have pricing steadily increasing, whether it's to avoid the wave of sells when an industry reels back or shutters, or when one is intent on moving to greener pastures, or at least a better home in a more agreeable neighborhood.
I'd pay taxes which, given the parent statements terms, would roughly equivocate them with asset price insurance before I stuck my neck out to get burned or blown up.
Most people who own are moderately content for their house to stay somewhat stable in price.
They definitely don't want it to go down, especially below the loan amount; but tools like Zillow make it way too easy to book "paper profits".
If you bought for $100k and later noticed Zillow say your house as $250k, and now it's saying $200k you can feel like you lost out even though you're still "up" - something that was more difficult before as you'd have to try to compare similar homes for sale.
Several years ago someone stole my former startup's first hardware prototype, along with a bunch of other stuff. In 300 years, should my descendents have a right to claim restitution from the descendents of whoever stole my things?
Some pieces of art can be strongly tied to the history or culture of a nation/group. Is that really morally objectionable to give that back to the people that still strongly identify with it?
And using your bad example. If someone 300 years from now had an item of little sentimental value to them, but meant the world to another family that has a strong history tied with that company, wouldn’t you say that the moral thing is to give it to people that care about the object?
It’s not always about the law and giving legal responsibilities. It’s just about doing the decent and moral thing.
This one is hard to me. For instance, it’s obvious to me that you can’t pay interest on this thing but if it were an actual thing, surely one should give it back.
I mean, if I took a gold bar stamped with your name and authentically yours from you and decades pass and your son meets my son and my son shows off his gold bar, does your son not have a right to that bar?
Seems like straightforward theft. Intellectual property and imputed losses are hard but an item that is still itself? It feels different.
It is flawed for (otherwise) veterans too if they are trying to do something that they haven't done before so do not know what they do not know.
This really only works if you have done the same or something very very similar before and so you have practically no unknowns. Notice that the developer who did that commented above that they had already done similar work at the past.
Also related this quote about how Joe Armstrong (of Erlang fame) approached problems (from [0]):
> Joe wrote amazingly simple programs and he did so in a peculiar way. First he wrote down the program any old way just to get it out of his head. Then once it worked he would then immediately create a new directory program2 and write it again. He would repeat this process five or six times (program5, program6, ...) and each time he would understand the problem a little better and sense which parts of the program were essential enough to re-type. He thought this was the most natural thing in the world: of course you throw away the first few implementations, you didn't understand the problem when you wrote those!
What present-day meme will reach a similar level of distribution and hazy origins? Will we see future generations speculating about the true nature of Harry Potter, or the Jedi, or Chuck Norris's superpowers, or the one true Nyancat?
I mean, we still have records of Josephus Flavius' (not a Christian and not associated with the early church) writings. He was writing something like 50 to 60 years after the date of Jesus death. However, it should be pointed out he mentioned something like 20 people all called Jesus (in Koine Greek), because it was at the time a relative common soubriquet. No early writers seem to doubt the existence of such a person although they definitely differ on the details.
In short, it's highly unlikely Jesus is purely fictional, and there was almost certainly someone known as Jesus executed by Pontius Pilate. Is this going to make a difference to your beliefs in any direction? No.
Those writings are doing a lot of heavy lifting, since that's about all apologists can hold up as 'contemporary corroboration'.
Antiquities was written in the last decade of the first century, so at the further end of your 50-60y range. As you note, the wording in the Jamesian reference is not very compelling in itself, and historicists generally argue that Josephus would have explained his terminology much more carefully than we see in that section, so there's some reason to doubt it was in the original.
The longer section from that work that apologists refer to is clearly an interpolation. The style is completely wrong for both the author and the context. The previous pages are describing taxes, protests, massacres, etc and then there's this very brief and spectacularly flowery prose that attests to Jesus being the Christ, and to the ten thousand wonders he did, and then on the next page the author continues with 'And another terrible thing that happened to the Jews ...' -- which only makes sense once you remove the clearly forged / added page.
At which point we're really short - a rounding error away from zero - on any corroborating stories from the 1st century.
Words follow that I hope might help you or someone else; but might not. I know sometimes the last thing one wants is "yet more advice." These are just things that work for me.
I'm vegetarian and I eat a pretty healthy diet.
Consider adding grass-fed/pasture-raised beef (or even just an occasional not-bottom-tier hamburger) to your diet on occasion. In my twenties I found that eating some high quality protein (better with friends, but even alone) added a small but growing crack in the walls that barricaded my soul.
Also consider drastically different life philosophies/cultures in case the one you're in isn't for you (e.g. the ideas that meditation is a cure-all or that vegetarianism is virtuous are pretty culture-specific). For me that meant leaving conservative religion, but for others it might mean leaving progressive "religion."
Something else that helped me was going into social situations with a slight "idgaf so I'll just be my positive self no matter who might try to shut me down" attitude.
And finally, find any weak link in the vicious feedback cycle and chip away at it. Don't feel bad, but if you do, don't feel bad about feeling bad, but if you do, don't feel ...etc. Put the brakes on the meta-guilt and just be okay with feeling whatever for now, and you can feel something else later.
I don't eat meat because I once butterflied a turkey for dinner, cutting out the backbone and removing the giblets, and I became physically sick when it dawned on me what I was doing. My view is, if I can't butcher something, I probably shouldn't be eating it.
This. Every Eichler I know of, the in-floor pipes are shot, and the heating is baseboard (for other reasons, like no attic space, central HVAC is not a common solution).
But hey, it's California. We gots the weathers!! Wouldn't work anyplace else I suspect.
Which ones are the right ones? Yours? Mine?