I dont think the poster was suggesting social skill/emotional control are an exclusive requirement, more that these are a prerequisite for any other skills even being fairly useful. at the very least, emotional control gives one the ability to improve other skills that may be lacking as they move through life.
I thought about possible interpretations, but aren’t they pretty clear in the first sentences.
If no, I don’t understand this position then. Having social skills doesn’t magically create learning skills (unless we postulate that learning is social) or real world skills, I mean real world that doesn’t hear you out when you command.
At the very least it should be put together with reality changing skills, not first. Because in the first place it creates talking heads which only change perception temporarily (aka lying).
um, that's kind of....the diametric opposite of what a majority, somewhat historic in the context that no Republican president has won the popular vote in 20 years, of Americans just voted for.
Look forward to alarming levels of healthcare privatization in the next four years unfortunately with players like Dr Oz (who is explicitly looking to make Medicare Advantage more the default) and Jay Bhattacharya in leading key healthcare roles
> A key part of that strategy is to expand the private Medicare Advantage program and push more and more Medicare recipients into it, leading to a death spiral of traditional public Medicare. The details are spelled out in the Project 2025 blueprint.
> um, that's kind of....the diametric opposite of what an overwhelming majority of Americans just voted for.
Not really. ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, and VA's health insurance programs are all extremely popular among voters.
There are lots of issues on the ballot, and approximately no one was voting for Trump's nonexistent "concept of a plan" for healthcare. Feel free to post evidence of "an overwhelming majority" of people voting for Trump's healthcare plan to back up your initial claim, if you'd like.
By the way, the popular vote had less than a 1.5% margin. There was no "overwhelming majority" in any sense.
This was the 49th largest "overwhelming majority" victory ever by popular vote and the 44th largest victory by Electoral College vote. That is to say: an extremely tight race by any measure.
Opinion polls arent the same as elections and the people voted in favor of expansion of Medicare Advantage whether that's their preference or not.
Considering no Republican president has won the popular vote in 20 years, the relatively small majority popular vote margin is nonetheless quite dramatic in the context of recent history.
Huh? Here's what you said prior to your edit (though your edit isn't actually responsive to my counterargument anyway):
> um, that's kind of....the diametric opposite of what an overwhelming majority of Americans just voted for.
Please substantiate your claim. There was no overwhelming majority, and even if there were, it does not at all mean that people voted for this particular policy. Again: you're free to provide evidence otherwise.
it's not at all the primary point i was making and the army of HN pedants to argue about a particular poorly chosen adjective to pretend somehow that the more important point I made is moot is as usual very tiresome, I edited the post to remove the offending adjective.
It doesn’t matter how popular those programs are. Rich Republicans are furious that their taxes are funding public health care and will stop at nothing to get “their” money back. And now they have full control of the government.
> um, that's kind of....the diametric opposite of what an overwhelming majority of Americans just voted for.
Point taken about the election outcome, but to quibble, it wasn't "an overwhelming majority of Americans". It was a bare majority of voters. Trump got 50% of the vote with 64% turnout, so it was under a third of the eligible voting population, and of course nobody under age 18.
overwhelming majority of Americans just voted for.
Trump won with a plurality of 64% of registered voters which works out to about 45% of the overall population. Put another way, less than a quarter of the population voted for this shit.
Elon Musk's current play is that he is attempting to literally occupy the federal government and the actual White House as some kind of "co-president" role he's been making for himself. Intrinsic in this position are all kinds of ways he can personally tailor policy towards his own financial preferences, in particular having direct influence over blunt instruments like tariffs to hobble competitors to his car company, as well as obviously placing ventures like SpaceX front and center over competitors such as Blue Origin.
What people should keep in mind is the general trajectory of highly influential people who find themselves riding along with this particular POTUS, mainly in that the timespan of these partnerships tends to be pretty short, almost proportionally to the general charisma of the subject, and that once ejected from the center, things tend to get pretty bad pretty fast. Rudy Giuliani is literally breaking down in courtrooms that he can't pay his bills. Clearly Musk won't have that kind of problem but once you get thrown off this particular ride, there's no getting back on.
I think it's a sign of Musk's trajectory that his reward for stanning for Trump is to become co-head of a body that has literally no power. And as you note, Trump is not known for reciprocation to people who are loyal to him.
There's a strong assumption from a lot of people that Musk has some major influence over Trump, but honestly, I would be more surprised if their friendship survived 2025... and I wouldn't be that shocked if it didn't make 2025 in the first place!
Misinformation remains a major threat to US democratic integrity, national security, and public health. However, social media platforms struggle to curtail the spread of the harmful but engaging content. Across platforms, McLoughlin et al. examined the role of emotions, specifically moral outrage (a mixture of disgust and anger), in the diffusion of misinformation. Compared with trustworthy news sources, posts from misinformation sources evoked more angry reactions and outrage than happy or sad sentiments. Users were motivated to reshare content that evoked outrage and shared it without reading it first to discern accuracy. Interventions that solely emphasize sharing accurately may fail to curb misinformation because users may share outrageous, inaccurate content to signal their moral positions or loyalty to political groups.
i think the importance of the study is that it shows that when misinformation is spread via outrage, countering it with accurate information has little to no effect. new ways to counter this kind of spread would need to be devised
in the woke hellscape of NYC you will see ten year olds riding the subway home from school all the time (the MTA explicitly recommends age 8 as the cutoff age for riding alone, although 12 is the more in-practice age).
In the sense that in Java (almost) everything is an object, a jOOQ query must of course return an object (such as a Record2<String, String>), but unlike Hibernate or AR, jOOQ doesn't enforce a 1:1 mapping between domain objects and tables, especially if you turn off POJO generation - at my last company, we had some custom mapping from a table to several subclasses of a sealed class depending on certain fields in the table - and you can even split a single class into two tables etc.
> In the sense that in Java (almost) everything is an object,
no, this is misleading. There are different kinds of objects. if you use JDBC to run a query you get back something like a Row object (sorry I havent done JDBC since the 1990s) - the "Row" like object does not declaratively define the fields of the row, the fields and the data of each field are all data. however when you get back POJOs, as you say, these declaratively define the fields that are "mapped" to a column. if jOOQ does this, it's an ORM. ORM has nothing to do with writing SQL - that's called a "SQL builder". the ORM is about marshalling data from POJO-style objects to and from relational database rows.
There are different ways of using jOOQ, some of them being more like an ORM (but still more low-level than Hibernate) and others less so. You can use the API in such a way that it just returns a general tuple object holding the result from your query (called Record1<T>, Record2<T1, T2>, etc.). This is especially useful when fetching from multiple tables. You can also use codegen to auto-create POJOs and mapping code, but this is not required.
"Unlike ORM frameworks, MyBatis does not map Java objects to database tables but Java methods to SQL statements." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyBatis
"Jdbi is not an ORM. It is a convenience library to make Java database operations simpler and more pleasant to program than raw JDBC." https://jdbi.org/
"While jOOQ is not a full fledged ORM (as in an object graph persistence framework), there is still some convenience available to avoid hand-writing boring SQL for every day CRUD. That's the UpdatableRecord API [which is only one part of it and you don't have to use it]" https://blog.jooq.org/how-to-use-jooqs-updatablerecord-for-c...
ORMs do not require SQL builders. Textual, hand constructed SQL to rows based on tables mapped to objects and you get objects back. "Why don't people learn SQL?" as a retort for ORMs is incorrect.
This is about ActiveRecord, which tries very hard to convince you that a relational database works like objects in memory, especially when it comes to associations, saving etc. Hibernate is similar in that regard (although it at least enforces repositories, but you can still have surprises when it comes to when it loads associated tables). Both allow you to drop down to SQL but then you lose syntax checking / type safety and the conveniences of the library.
With something like jOOQ, the query language is basically SQL, just made type-safe. You write a query that maps to an SQL query 1:1 and then you map the results to whatever you need. No implicit saving, auto-loading of associations in the background etc.
So it's not about "people should use the SQL syntax instead of query builders", it's "people should write relational queries explicitly instead of relying on the framework to save and load stuff from the database when it deems it necessary". Your domain objects do not need to know that they're persisted and they don't need to carry a DB connection around at all times (looking at you, ActiveRecord).
I dont usually buy the argument "make this code no longer state the intent that would normally be understood by people who know the programming language, so that it's more readable for people who don't know the programming language"
> When updating an app, since there could be lots of files being updated, using a database would allow all changes to be done atomically in a transaction. This would prevent broken web pages from being served during a version change.
but....the SQLite file is locked against reads while writing in order to achieve serializable isolation. which sort of indicates you're better off doing your database work in an offline file, then just swapping the new file for the old one that's in production. which sort of indicates....just use a tar file, or a separate directory that you swap in to update the new content.
it is so much easier to serve static files statically rather than from some program that's trying to manage live SQLite connections and achieve some weird "update concurrency" magic when this problem is not at all that hard to solve. It's fine to manage your CMS in a sqlite database but when you serve the content live and it's static, use static files.
And even without WAL (which you should absolutely be using if you're serving web content with SQLite) the lock for most writes lasts for a tiny fraction of a second.
small writes, which is still a dramatically larger pause than simply copying a few files to a directory and not pausing anything. if the website update is hundreds of large files, then the SQLite write is going to be large also. it then comes down to, "is it faster to copy 200M of files to a filesystem or write 200M of new data to BLOBs in a single monolithic SQLite file?" I'd bet the former in that race
I might be misremembering, but if you're using a transaction like in the article but using the rollback journal mode rather than WAL, won't sqlite actually hold the lock on the database for the entire time until the transaction is committed, which might actually be a substantial amount of time if you're writing lots of blobs like in the article even if each individual blob doesn't take that long?
reply