This is why I moved to jOOQ years ago. Nice lean abstraction over SQL, to the point where it's just a typesafe SQL builder and also does the mapping to domain objects if you want. Abstracts and polyfills SQL capabilities just enough for you to be able to port your queries between DBs if desired.
I'm a big fan of jOOQ. I've been able to implement the most complicated SQL expressions in jOOQ. Though there is one particular use case that it cannot do, but my memory fails me. There is an open issue in Github for it that's been open for years. Luke, the creator of jOOQ, is not able to figure out the solution to implement it. But no worries, it's still my favorite way to access my DB.
I've only had a brief stint in Java in my career, but I got to learn about and use jOOQ, and I think it's such a fantastic option in this space. I'm still a diehard SQLAlchemy fan, and I'd use it in Python-land. For Go, I think sqlc is a decent option, but it's no jOOQ. I'd love jOOQ for Go.
jOOQ is far and away the best library in this class for any ecosystem.
It's so good you would need to think long and hard not to choose the JVM for a SQL heavy application because it's just that damn good and most other library requirements are relatively interchangeable.
It's 2022. Why would I learn even more horrible CMake instead of just going full Meson? Looks like it's the same cognitive cost, but no gains by staying on CMake.
For my curiosity, does Meson emit "native" build files, such as Visual Studio, Makefiles, Ninja, or the like?
That's been my favorite part of CMake (even before CLion used it as their defacto project format): if you can get a run of cmake to complete (which, granted ...), then you can open the project in a sane IDE and have library and build targets available
Yes, I agree. That's why I pointed out that it was specifically US market share. I just found those quickly. The percentages are lower in other regions, but the total numbers are still huge.
The question is what is the percentage of potential market for a specific product. If you are optimizing GPU code, that is a very different market from “all computers” or “all phones”. If the market depends on high performance GPUs, then the Ultra has potential to be a noticeable percentage of that market.
Well up until the M1 Ultra, almost no one was doing GPU intensive stuff on mac, since they didn't have a line with a decent gpu. As such, Apple is creating an issue for developers that only manifests on the $6000 version of their machine that requires rewriting your whole algorithm to work around.
Exactly. On top of that, Apple is still in the minority and refuses to support the Vulkan API they helped design. So, from a development standpoint, rewriting your software to support ~15% of your potential market isn't a very lucrative idea. Especially when the vast majority of those users will be running relatively incapable hardware, at least on the GPU side of things.
Sure but what if the US Engineering population represents a large portion of your paid-user demographics. For a lot of HN's startups this is very much the case.
That's not very relevant for the purpose of this discussion though. For example, a common stat floating around is how iPhone has 20% market share around the world but provides 80% of in-app revenue, which is what businesses care about.
Keep in mind that the author is not neutral here: Since he's expressed his position against trans people, and by doing that parted ways with Danielle Foré before (who previously identified as Daniel Foré and participated in his youtube videos), and also you can see that it refuses to use the actual name for Danielle; it's not surprising that he wants to reach a conclusion against her.
What does the trans issue even have to do with a partnership dispute, on the shareholding structure of their arrangement? Why does everything have to be a gender issue?
Internet was shit until it got its own VisiCalc: online advertising. After the dotcom bubble it was the only area that held well enough and could take advantage of the newfound aversion to paying for stuff online.
I was on the Internet since 1991. Usenet was great but it was hard to find other stuff. There were mailing lists for specialty topics and Archie and Gopher to find FTP sites. Then you'd have to use an FTP client to download files.
The creation of the World Wide Web and the graphical browser is what really made the Internet explode in popularity. When I came back to college in fall 1994 there were a lot of web sites and search engines to find sites. The ability to edit a text file and add more HTML links made it so easy to use and create.
Not to mention I can't hire lawyers, researchers, illustrators, and all the other things my company does for me. It would cost me so much more, both in dollars and time.
Yep! While yeah I am selling IP for some small bonus, it's way, way easier and a guaranteed return on my investment vs. creating a startup or trying to get someone to license a patent. I've done a few patents now at my current job, and it's literally about 4 hours of investment from me for each one to get the summary written up, talk to the lawyers, and then review their patent draft.
Also, the patent lawyers I worked with had so much domain experience (ML) that it was kinda scary.
Well it depends a lot on the patent, I guess. Some patents are definitely not worth a startup, so probably it's not a bad idea to get some bonus and be done with it.
However it's cool for big companies to show they have thousands of patents.
Wonky comparison, as plagiarism involves claiming authorship/evading citing, not literally copying text and keeping it somewhere else. I CAN go and copy text from any textbook into my notebook without consequences, why couldn't I download a copy of an image?
Did you ask for permission and were granted permission to take that image from the server for any other use than for viewing in a browser? What is the purpose of downloading the image? To share with friends? Why not send a link to the site? To use a desktop background? Did you pay to license for that use? To store on your phone for your own personal enjoyment? Again, why not reload the website?
As a lowly end user not intending to widely redistribute the content, I decline this absurd level of responsibility, and the doctrine of fair use would tend to agree.
And as long as websites tend to modify, delete, move, or otherwise play games with urls and content, I will see value in saving a permanent copy. That I should be able to do that is frankly how the internet was intended to function; if that's not desirable for the content, then perhaps it should not be published on the internet at all.
>And as long as websites tend to modify, delete, move, or otherwise play games with urls and content <snip> then perhaps it should not be published on the internet at all.
Except an artist can deliberately decide to only make an image publicly available for a limited time, and therefore taken the image down from the website. Just like art moves from museum to museum, an artist can allow an image to be used within a pre-defined window. Just because you have the technical know how to extract an image that is not readibly downloadable via the UI does not mean you should.
Maybe one of the features of JXL would be a timebomb type of setting where after a certain date the data is no longer useable.
I sympathize with both sides of this argument. I get that info wants to be free blah blah, but I also understand that artists are in a difficult situation with the internet. I mean, an artist's work posted on the internet is not the cure for cancer, or basic information on algebra where the info should be evergreen. The group think is more of "I want what I want" vs consideration for what the artist's intentions are. If you enjoy an image so much that you're willing to go to the effort to get the image, why not acquire the image throuh legit method?
If someone saves an image for private use, that doesn't interfere with limited public availability.
> If you enjoy an image so much that you're willing to go to the effort to get the image, why not acquire the image throuh legit method?
Do you make the same argument when people use a VHS? If you're willing to go through the effort to press the record button, you should go buy a copy for $20?
Depends on the purpose the use of the VHS. Copying something you brought home from Blockbuster would definitely qualify. Recording something off of TV to watch at a later more convenient time was just the precursor to DVR.
The image file you downloaded from someone's website without their permission in miles better in quality than the stupid VHS. It's more like the DVD/Blu-ray you ripped from your buddy that actually paid for it. Just because you can doesn't mean you should
Saving an image is very high quality. But so is DVR. Usually a DVR copy is perfect.
DVR sounds like a very good analogy to me. The website is showing you something, and you make a personal capture that you can replay at any time. It was distributed to you specifically, and you're time-shifting it. You're not taking a personal copy held by one person and making it two personal copies held by two people, which is what happens when you rip someone else's DVD. And the same way, you shouldn't take that image you saved and start distributing it around.
