By contrast, China is the US' third largest trading partner (after Canada and Mexico) at 10% of US trade. Taiwan is much more intertwined with China economically. Which makes sense given the geographic proximity and linguistic and cultural ties.
>“Well, I have news for you: some things are just hard. There’s no way of getting around it.”
If you think this, but I have a way to make something 10x easier that you can't or don't know how to do then I can sell my idea to you as a service for a monthly subscription fee.
We've banned this account for obvious reasons spanning multiple threads. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
I'm sad to ban someone who's been here for 9 years and made many positive contributions, but the damage you did in the last 24 hours on HN is outrageous, and this has been a problem more than once in the past (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17791870).
It's ok. I expected this. Consider this a criticism of HN. Maybe one day I'll email you and give you a reason. But I can always just make a new account.
Basically I tried using the flag multiple times when I'm insulted and you have failed repeatedly to remedy the situation and there were even times you basically unflagged the people who have been offensive. I'm left in a situation where I invested a lot of time into writing comments and I have to just take it and I have no mechanism to protect myself because every response I make is an opening for them to subtract my karma.
It's emotionally taxing to invest time into writing comments here and emotionally taxing to read insulting criticism and just sit there and take the insult when you've basically been ignoring my flags.
The fact that you selectively moderate everything has led me to realize that it's not worth it to invest time to write my opinions on HN. What's outrageous is that I've been here 9 years and I just decided it's not worth it to let this bad actor insult me and sit here while you basically ignore the whole situation.
The only reason you responded is because I decided to defend my self and this amped up the situation two fold. Other than that his rude responses would have been completely ignored even if I flagged his posts.
>I'm sad to ban someone who's been here for 9 years and made many positive contributions,
This is just not true. You aren't even aware of what positive contributions I have made to HN. I've just been here for a while.
Why am I even writing this. It's not like you care enough to change.
I care enough to respond to you, for what it's worth. I think the main problem here is the experience of being insulted and the wish to defend against insults. Because we have so little information about each other in these little internet comments, it's extremely easy to perceive insults where there wasn't anything much. More importantly though, even if someone does post an insult, it's just a shitty internet comment. Why respond in kind? It's beneath your dignity and does no good. It feeds the other person's inclination to go further, and damages the container here. I'm not suggesting that you turn the other cheek exactly; just that it's in your and HN's interest for you to just ignore it when people post nasty things.
I believe readers (intelligent ones at least) look to see who stopped replying first and extend greater respect to that one. It feels exactly the opposite in the moment: I have to defend myself lest the other comment stand unrefuted. But actually the commenter with the greater strength to ignore insults and/or walk away is the one who looks better on the internet. I'm writing this for myself as much as anything, since I find this a difficult lesson to learn.
We've banned this account for obvious reasons spanning multiple threads. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Why would you use ERP instead of a regular SQL database?
edit Got a lot of vote downs. This was a genuine question from someone completely ignorant on what ERP is. Not trying to say that SQL is better, but I'm asking this because I'm ignorant of what ERP is and the description makes it appear as if it's a database.
What's the difference? would be better wording I guess.
Try getting your average office worker to deal with an SQL database directly. No chance unless it only has a single table. A database without an interface tailored for a specific purpose is useless for office staff. I know this from experience having once tried to get office staff using pgAdmin to update the shiny new database I had designed for them.
Yes I've heard that often businesses mould themselves to the software, rather than the other way around. The argument is that decades of exposure means that, if not entirely optimal, it at least represents competent processes for running a very large and complicated business. Rolling your own multinational tax compliance in SQL would be madness.
I don't know about SAP in particular, but ERP solutions frequently use SQL on the backend. I work with Microsoft Dynamics and it's just a SQL database with a special front-end for constructing workflows. I suspect Oracle ERP would be similar and have Oracle on the backend as well.
Because the ERP solution comes with a gaggle of sales people, sales eng, and bizdev folks to convince your co's decision makers that it is best thing since butter.
"SQL doesn't"... you are correct, SQL can't figure out how much tax you need to pay across 9 tax jurisdictions. SQL can't tell me the best way for my warehouse picking robots to move across the floor based on the layout of the warehouse and what others products are being picked right this second plus over the next few minutes. The list is really endless of what SAP will do and SQL won't. It would take decades to replicate what SAP does.
I mean I guess you can throw all that functionality in a bunch of triggers but that would slow down your database to a crawl every time one record updated.
SAP released new IFRS tax compliance features last year to match the latest government regulations; they then gave this is over 4000 customers for free. It cost SAP around 1.2 million EURO to build, test and roll out. Are you saying that those 4000 customers (companies) should have just built their own tax compliance finance systems? That would have cost 4000 * 1.2 million which would be a total economic spend of four billion eight hundred million... how about you put your ego on the shelf and listen to other people?
You're advocating building massive software applications over using what's already available and you're advocating that all companies do this... you completely ignored my argument and you have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you write crappy webapps in JS that doesn't mean you understand the software market at all.
The foundations of peoples' beliefs are not tied to logic or truth, it is tied to time, effort, character and way of life.
Any change in belief that will influence their way of life will raise psychological shields. People will very readily change their logic to maintain a belief if that meant preserving other other aspects of their lives that they have put time and effort into.
This book is written for people who already understand the true nature of science and religion. I highly doubt it can convert people, I have yet to find a technique or even a book that has the ability to do so. It's just the way people are...
Whenever you see someone convert from religion to science most of the time the underlying foundations of it had nothing to do with logical realization and more to do with some form of minor or major trauma.
If you experienced a conversion to science from religion and you yourself describe the experience as a "logical realization" I would argue that you probably weren't that invested in the religion in the first place OR that there was some associated trauma that coincided with the "logical realization."
Haha. You are much better at psychology than I am. You are so right that logical arguments just make people cling to their old beliefs harder.
But then...
What is the purpose of the book?
Is it just to give scientifically oriented people a playbook of arguments to use against anti-evolutionary bible thumpers when debating school curriculum?
I'll accept that.
FWIW Buddhism is different from the "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians, Muslims all worship literally the same God.) Buddhism is not monotheistic.
(The resolution between these forms was given in South Park of all places: God appears on Earth and mentions in passing that He is Buddhist.)
- - - -
Uh, heh, Hinduism is also different from the "People of the Book", and from Buddhism. The Gita is, of course, Hindu, not Buddhist. (I'm not sure how I got confused in the previous portion of this comment, sorry. No offense intended!)
If one is reading Holy Bible or Koran, one needs to adhere that they are the only god.
But in nowhere in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, ...
Or any other religions from Indian origin claim their's is the only truth.
All of them are completely fine with different view points.
For example Hinduism is too broad, it literally accepts everything.
For Ex:
There is only one God, there are many gods, there is no God.
One can be an atheist and be a good Hindu.
You need to pray to god, you shouldn't pray to god.
But there is an unification among all Indian religions. For ex: All religions go in search of God/Truth.
Any how, Bhagavadgita, should rather be looked up-on like a more of philosophical text rather than religious book.
It is the essence of MahaBharata, yet another religious text book.
>This is locking down for the sake of locking down, not an evidence-first safety driven approach. That is something I cannot support.
It is 100% evidence based. Reduction of gatherings = reduction in transmission. There's no way around this. People may be more likely to get covid from costco, but reducing interaction to only costco is still reduction of transmission.
This idolization of Elon Musk and contrarian logic that really doesn't even make common sense is getting on my nerves.
It's like one of those people who said that face masks weren't protecting people from covid using faulty but overconfident logic.
It isn't just the car factory one needs to look at: Where are these employees eating lunch? Have they redesigned break rooms? How are employees getting to work - collective transport? Since employees are out more due to work, are they more likely to stop elsewhere or have small gatherings since everything feels like it is returning to normal?
And as you said, going to less places means there is less chance of getting infected.
You don't think Nuclear weapons and a president named Trump is a security concern for the rest of the world?
You're here worrying about semiconductor foundries? Why? Your phone already has enough processing power to guide a nuclear bomb into the white house. It's already a concern and it's already too late. Taiwan and the rest of the world has computing technology well past a "security concern."
Of course anyone who's not white and American if they have any form of computing technology that's better than the America makes it a security risk. Are you actually afraid or are you so arrogant that you believe that only America should have the latest and greatest technologies?
Makes sense because only a country with a wise and mature president like trump and citizens genius enough to vote for him are privileged enough to have "technology."
I'm tired of these racist bigoted opinions from blind white people who don't understand of the world. Grow up. Stop being racist.
You know they say that if you go to prison the longer you stay... more and more people start abandoning you just because of time. I'm talking about over a period of 10-20 years. Eventually contact is lost because everyone moves on.
First your girlfriend stops visiting, then your wife, then your kids.
They say the one connection that stays constant are your parents. If you're in jail for 20 years your parents will love you till the day you die and that love never fades. No one will ever love you as much as your parents.
The connection is one way unfortunately. Children will never love their parents as much as their parents love them.
As bad as your relationship is with your parents. Once they're gone, you're pretty much alone.
You obviously haven't met my mother. Every time I see my mom these days she's asking for money for drugs or is too busy wrapped in her phone to have a conversation.
And I know plenty other people whose love for their parents far outweighs the love their parents show in return. Mother's Day is always a slog for me as I internally sort my desire for respect and sense of humanitarian duty.
If you're making a general rule, I would refrain from using absolutisms like "never" which alienate the outliers like myself and invalidate your statement.
It's deeper than drugs. The drug problem is a symptom of the greater problem: selfishness and complete lack of responsibility.
Maybe what you say is true. Tell me about your situation.
I know that when someones parents are toxic and abusive they need to be cut off.
However, for many parents when the situation is reversed they do not have a choice. The love is too great and the parents have to stick with the child until the very very end.
If you murdered someone, a good number of parents will never abandon you. They will give up everything to help you including their own lives.
Do you have a friend or someone other than your parents who will stick with you no matter what? Tell me about it.
> As bad as your relationship is with your parents. Once they're gone, you're pretty much alone.
Absolutely untrue. If your parents are toxic and damaging, you should cut them from your life. Some people can't live healthy lives if they keep contact with their abusive parents.
I'm in total agreement with you. If your parents are toxic, dump them for sure. Not every parent is like my description, I'm just describing a generality that describes the majority.
Despite this, I truly believe the statement below:
If you don't have parents that will stick with you while you're still in prison for 30 years, then you don't have anyone on the face of this earth who will do this for you. You are alone.
By alone I mean who in the world will help you if you're a psychopathic killer who enjoys torturing animals and people? Who is the last person on the face of the earth who will not give up on you?
Your parents, that is if you have parents that love you this way. Many don't but many do.
Every single one of your other relationships relies on effort by you to maintain. If you violate certain societal norms all bets are off. All relationships are basically just mutual trade agreements except for the parent - child bond. It's a cynical world view but it's real, there are lines everywhere that you have to make efforts not to cross because you're aware that if those lines are crossed people will abandon you.
I mostly posted because I feel a lot of people have bad relationships with parents that actually do love them but for various other reasons (psychological problems, poverty, stress, drugs etc... ) ended up just having a bad relationship with their parents.
I think it's absolutely worth it to try and establish contact and maintain a relationship if you feel that the relationship problems are superficial and underneath it all your parents do love you.
In that article, the mother lost contact with both of her children. It is not a trivial situation to be in when both children don't want contact. She must have done many things that were really serious and really horrible. But her last email she wrote that she loves both of them no matter what, and I think that is real.
What I am saying is that as imperfect as people are as much damage and toxicity they have done, if you sense that underneath it all there's genuine love then it's absolutely worth maintaining that relationship because you're never going to get someone to love you like this again. If true love even exists, it can only exist from parent to child.
It seems like you're having trouble either understanding or believing how bad some mothers actually are. What about the ones that leave their baby in a dumpster? If that kid grows up does it have an obligation to try and maintain a relationship with its mother?
Abusive parents are one of the most tragic and debilitating sources of trauma there is. Many people are doomed to suffer this trauma for their entire lives despite their best efforts to move on. Please don't encourage these people to reconnect with their parents. You are opening old wounds and I don't think you understand how deep they are.
Have some compassion for the poor guy. People with regular parents literally cannot imagine what growing up with abusive parents is like. When you try to explain you just draw a total blank, it's like taking a blind man to an exhibition of paintings.
The fellow is blind, there is nothing that can be done about his blindness. Let him continue to be blind.
Read my other comments. I'm not disagreeing with you or the other poster. There's a possible misunderstanding in what I'm saying here.
We're all blind in certain sense. I'm thinking people like you who were possibly abused cannot see the other side of the coin. Can you imagine a bond so strong that for parents with abusive/toxic children there is no choice.
If my child was a psychopathic killer, I have to love him and support him until the bitter end. I have many choices in life such as the choice of committing a crime or refraining from committing a crime. The choice of risking my own life to save another or watching someone else die.
For my child, I do not have a choice.
If a parent-child bond exists, I think it's the strongest bond in all human relationships. Many mothers describe it as taking a piece of your soul and letting it walk around outside of your body. It doesn't exist in all cases but when it does exist there's nothing else like it.
But obviously not every parent and child will have this bond, I'm sorry if you or anyone reading this didn't.
I'm thinking people like you who were possibly abused cannot see the other side of the coin
We see how regular parents behave towards their children just fine, thankyouverymuch. We have eyes in our heads. You, however, as your reply shows, are congenitally unable to consider that some parents maltreat their children and that these parents look to the outside world like well-adjusted people. (If they didn't, relatives/the State/whoever) would have stepped in long ago.
No, I don't know how they train psychologists and psychiatrists to even perceive that problem. I suggest you look into that and do not come back until you have done so.
>We see how regular parents behave towards their children just fine, thankyouverymuch. We have eyes in our heads.
And so do all regular people thank you very much. My grandparents abused my parents. I know all about it. I've been told every story. Do not think you have privileged knowledge just because you've been abused? Do I think I have privileged knowledge just because I haven't? No. I don't. But I can honestly say that I don't know first hand what it's like to be abused just like you don't know first hand what it's like to have a parent love you unconditionally.
One of my parents ran away from home for being abused. He had to live on the streets until he was 17 before he was able to make something of himself and become self sufficient.
>You, however, as your reply shows, are congenitally unable to consider that some parents maltreat their children and that these parents look to the outside world like well-adjusted people.
Did you read any of the posts I wrote? I am literally only talking about parents who LOVE their children. NEVER did I say that child abuse doesn't exist. These are completely different things. I even went further to emphasize this point multiple times.
>That's EOD here.
You know what my grandparents said to my dad before they beat him? "End of discussion."
I'm not even slightly kidding here, this is literally the what he said and the attitude he had... my way or the highway. Additionally, this was in Asia, you think there's child protection services back then in Asia? A kid was owned by their parents and beating kids was a part of culture. Beating kids until they're unconscious was probably illegal but given the culture almost always overlooked 99.99% of the time.
Watch where you take your arguments because the hatred, lack of open mindedness, lack of emotional control, lack if willingness to discuss things and lack of empathy for people who disagree with you is a precursor to abuse.
>It seems like you're having trouble either understanding or believing how bad some mothers actually are. What about the ones that leave their baby in a dumpster? If that kid grows up does it have an obligation to try and maintain a relationship with its mother?
Your assumption is incorrect. Where in any of my posts did I say that people are under obligation to maintain a relationship with parents? I absolutely NEVER said this.
This is what I said and I quote verbatim:
"I think it's absolutely worth it to try and establish contact and maintain a relationship if you feel that the relationship problems are superficial and underneath it all your parents do love you."
This was the situation I was in. This is the situation the person in the NYTimes article is describing. I'm just keeping on topic here.
Look there are definitely horrible parents out there. I'm fortunate to not have had parents that would beat the shit out of me or torture me. I'm just keeping in line with the topic of the NYTimes article. If you don't feel "your parents love you" then absolutely do not open up a relationship.
Basically bad relationships with parents who still ultimately love you is the theme that the article and I am targeting.
If you don't have that underlying relationship with your parent then don't try to reconnect. You be the judge, I'm not trying to ask people to reconnect with parents who are psychopathic. I'm asking people to reconnect with parents who mean well and actually do love you but have ultimately made grave mistakes in the past.
Never did I say every parent and every situation is like this. I am saying for THIS situation and the situation described in the article it is appropriate.
>Libraries aren't everything, but they should be preferred.
The story is much much more complicated than this. Every single one of you is using a framework everyday, that is unless you program in assembly language.
All Programming languages are highly opinionated frameworks on top of assembly languages.
When you know this, then you know that you can't just say something simplistic like libraries are "preferred."
If all programming languages are frameworks on top of assembly language then frameworks are not only preferred they are Required for humans to make sense of complexity.
When you write a framework like django within the framework of python you are putting a framework within a framework. It's similar to writing a compiler that compiles some PL into python. You are building layers and layers of interfaces between your logic.
For every extra layer you add, two things, in general, happen:
1. Complexity decreases
2. Restriction increases
So when someone writes an article like this, what they are actually saying is this:
"The complexity and restriction balance in the current framework/programming language
strikes the right balance so in my opinion (keyword)
writing another framework on top of the current framework will
increase the restriction to the point where the trade off is not worth it."
When writing a library as opposed to a framework, what people are essentially doing is augmenting the capabilities of the current framework without creating an extra layer of abstraction. Another good way to think about it is that frameworks are equivalent to extra layers of abstraction and therefore the benefits and downsides of adding more layers of abstraction are equivalent to adding more frameworks. So it's really not as simple to say that "Libraries are preferred."
The story actually gets even more complicated then this. I spoke previously as if there is a trade off between Complexity and Restriction. While a decrease in complexity is always good, an increase in restriction is not always bad.
Take for example ELM. ELM is a language (or framework) that compiles to javascript and HTML. It is more restrictive then javascript due to type checking. Yes type checking is a framework that decreases freedom and increases restriction. But people think type checking is a good thing. Why? Well, the ELM type checker/framework is so powerful that it restricts you from ever writing a run time error. You absolutely do not have the freedom to write code that has certain bugs in ELM while in javascript you absolutely have the freedom to pollute your code with thousands of obscure bugs.
Restriction can be good, really good. In fact restriction outside of testing is our greatest tool and weapon for combating the problem of bugs occurring as a result of too much complexity.
In short, I don't like this article because it doesn't illustrate the full story. It kind of biases against frameworks. The author did not think deeply enough, he thinks of frameworks in terms of things like rails or django, but he does not think of what a framework is from a more general perspective.
Keep in mind, react or how react is used is basically a framework as well. Nobody uses it as a library, they prefer the component abstraction to take over the entire notion of the DOM.
