> rather than abusing existing relational databases for graph purposes.
In my experience, the vast majority of graphs can be embedded in relational databases just fine and most people don't want general graph querying. People just don't like optimizing queries (or equivalently the schema to enable such queries).
I personally have never seen a pitch for graph databases that makes them seem attractive for more than data exploration on your local machine.
Yep, something like adjacency lists have solved a lot of dumb recursive queries/"graph queries" for me, usually because the graph doesn't change much and is just a few nodes deep.
Presumably the database needs to be distributed to servers, too. The engine needs to access something. This is a necessity whether or not it's referred to as a binary.
Reading without write contention is not a terribly difficult problem. You could use any database and it'd work fine. It's the mutations that distinguish db engines. Sqlite is indeed close to ideal but the comparison to other databases (at scale no less) is without substance.
This comment appears to be the only place between article and thread where mongo getting recommended is even mentioned. Maybe stop giving them free press. I certainly haven't heard anyone seriously suggest them for about about ten years now.
Edit: ok the other guy mentioning mongo is clearly being sarcastic
Why else would you put a bull in front of the stock exchange except as commentary on assholes pitching bull markets? How could you possibly construe this as a coincidence?
Yeah, fair enough. Wikipedia has this, which I hadn’t found before:
> The terms come from London's Exchange Alley in the early 18th century, where traders who engaged in naked short selling were called "bear-skin jobbers" because they sold a bear's skin (the shares) before catching the bear. This was simplified to "bears," while traders who bought shares on credit were called "bulls." The latter term might have originated by analogy to bear-baiting and bull-baiting, two animal fighting sports of the time.
I replied to a comment about crypto whale pump and dump schemes in a threat about predicting crowd behaviour in reference to running of the bull festival, which happens to be, at least loosely, couple to the idea of a raging bull. Wall St has a raging bull sculpture.
I feel dumber having just written that out. Don't they teach reading comprehension at school any more?
Unfortunately, I don’t see any words here that describe the relation. I would appreciate if you could point them out to me so I can give my comprehension skills another go.
Crowd density is certainly the key here. Over a certain density crowds move like a liquid. Under a certain density crowds get much more difficult to model.
This is not new in any way, btw. This paper seems to specifically address the running of the bulls.
Sure, but this completely neglects the aspects of humanity we left behind moving into sedentary communities. We will be forever blind to what we lost, and the morons among us will claim we lost nothing.
Which parts are you referring to? The part where you kill a guy with a rock if he looks at your wife funny?
We always lose something when evolving, that's okay. You can keep living in whatever way you want to, as long as it doesn't disrupt the liberty of another person. If you're mad that the world embraced secularity over spiritualism, or that men aren't fist-fighting for resources, blame yourself for not modernizing. Without any serious examples, your comment basically just reads like a trad dogwhistle.
When someone gives this opinion, I think to myself they surely must be terrified of a stranger killing their wife with a rock (or merely desiring it themselves). How else can you excuse or explain such an impoverished imagination?
If you are actually looking for an answer and not simply to comfort yourself, I heartily recommend Shaman by Kim Stanley Robinson.
>We always lose something when evolving, that's okay.
no, it's not necessarily okay. Nothing to do about it, and we can't change a thing , but we're not guaranteed more success in the future, and plenty of genetic mishaps occur that aren't okay -- so not every change is guaranteed to be 'okay'.
>Which parts are you referring to? The part where you kill a guy with a rock if he looks at your wife funny?
you can frame it both ways.
You say we lost the ability to bludgeon each other with rocks. (we haven't..)
I say we lost the freedom to live without social caveats like "...as long as it doesn't disrupt the liberty of another person.".
I am happy with our trajectory, but it takes a supreme blind eye to ignore that we've taken forks in the road that we can't walk back on; and i'd contend that most of what we're talking about here has nothing to do with biological evolution and everything to do with social evolution and progress.
Many of us still have the drive towards violence upon sleights, this hasn't been somehow removed by evolution -- social evolution and culture however came about and had some strong words to say about murder and what shall happen to murderers.
Social evolution used the traits of self-preservation and bent the blade backwards to provide compensation towards society for an actors bad motives. Murder didn't somehow get bred out, it became a penalized act -- those with self-interest then began to avoid penalized acts. We still have plenty of murder.
Furthermore, parent that you are replying to explicitly says that we'll be blind to what we've missed. They're absolutely right. You can oversimplify that statement into meaning cave-men headbashing each other, but there is a lot more in that statement than you seem to be willing to unpack.
We had a field where any form of philosophy, governance, or religion could have taken hold and we chose a single trajectory for our future. Of course we had to do that, that's how things work -- but the field of choices initially was so immense that it seems in poor taste to presume what parent must have meant was just barbarian violence.
Why not be altruistic in interpretation here and presume the parent wanted to speak on the difference between sedentary and nomadic life-styles?
Time and time again the issues our society faces prove to us that we have yet to find an optimal way to do things. No one can really say whether or not we're getting there faster or slower than another path would have taken us..
