Each core is multiples faster than a 90's CPU for various reasons as well. I think if you look at an entire rack it's easily a multiple of a 90's datacenter.
I can't understand if their "intro to database systems" is an introductory (undergrad) level course or some advanced course (as in, introduction to database (internals)).
Anyone willing to clarify this? I'm quite weak at database stuff, i'd love to find some undergrad-level proper course to learn and catch up.
It is an undergrad course, though it is cross-listed for masters students as well. At CMU, the prerequisites chain looks like this: 15-122 (intro imperative programming, zero background assumed, taken by first semester CS undergrads) -> 15-213 (intro systems programming, typically taken by the end of the second year) -> 15-445 (intro to database systems, typically taken in the third or fourth year). So in theory, it's about one year of material away from zero experience.
> But losing SO means that we're getting an idiot friendly guy with a lot of credible but wrong answers in place of a grumpy and possibly toxic guy which, however, actually answered our questions.
Which by the way is incredibly ironic to read on the internet after like fifteen years of annoying people left and right about toxic this and toxic that.
Extreme example: Linus Torvalds used to be notoriously toxic.
Would you still defend your position if the “grumpy” guy answered in Linus’ style?
> Would you still defend your position if the “grumpy” guy answered in Linus’ style?
If they answered correctly, yes.
My point is that providing _actual knowledge_ is by itself so much more valuable compared to _simulated knowledge_, in particular when that simulated knowledge is hyper realistic and wrong.
Sadly, an accountable individual representing an organization is different from a community of semi-anonymous users with a bunch of bureaucracy that can't or doesn't care about every semis anonymous user
> I disagree with most comments that the brusque moderation is the cause of SO's problems
Just to add another personal data point: i started posting in on StackOverflow well before llms were a thing and moderation instantly turned ne off and i immediately stopped posting.
Moderators used to edit my posts and reword what i wrote, which is unacceptable. My posts were absolutely peaceful and not inflammatory.
Moderation was an incredible problem for stack overflow.
> Moderators used to edit my posts and reword what i wrote, which is unacceptable. My posts were absolutely peaceful and not inflammatory.
99.9% probability the people who made those edits a) were not moderators; b) were acting completely in accordance with established policy (please read: "Why do clear, accurate, appropriately detailed posts still get edited?" https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/403176)
Why do you think you should be the one who gets to decide whether that's "acceptable"? The site existed before you came to it, and it has goals, purposes and cultural norms established beforehand. It's your responsibility, before using any site on the Internet that accepts user-generated content, to try to understand the site's and community's expectations for that content.
On Stack Overflow, the expectations are:
1. You license the content to the site and to the community, and everyone is allowed to edit it. (This is also explicitly laid out in the TOS.)
2. You are contributing to a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for the programming community: a catalog of questions whose answers can be useful to many people, not just to yourself.
3. Content is intended to be matter-of-fact and right to the point, and explicitly not conversational. You are emphatically not participating in a discussion forum.
What "tone"? Why is it unreasonable to say these sorts of things about Stack Overflow, or about any community? How is "your questions and answers need to meet our standards to be accepted" any different from "your pull requests need to meet our standards to be accepted"?
Man, if this was irl, you'd be punched in the face or ostracized. That's a quick way to assess if your tone is right.
If you don't have a mental capacity to do that (nothing against you, some people are just born that way) — I pity you, but still, try to be 'helpful' over 'correct'. That's how civilization is built.
Wikipedia also have this problem, with moderators using some 'wiki-speak' jargon to 'win the comment battles'.
Yeah it’s unlikely that this site will collect any meaningful data and it’s unlikely that you lose any meaningful data by playing with a virtual unix from the 70ies.
> Solitude in your 30s (particularly as a DINK or SINK household) is dangerously addictive.
Can confirm (SINK).
The real problem is that solitude in your 30s is peaceful. So peaceful. So much so that if you built your own safety net and covered your back, solitude is so peaceful that you might end up not even wanting a romantic partner at all.
Anybody that had their fair share of storms in life can confirm that having a calm, peaceful life of solitude can be so peaceful one often doesn't really want to change that.
i am somewhere in the middle because my work requires me to go to the office only four days per month but no one is really checking (nor they check if i go in at 9 am or 1pm).
so for me it's nice because i get to have my slow morning and go to the office during lunch break (i live relatively close).
this made me realize that i don't really mind the office (i ended up going almost every day, staying from lunch break 'till 5pm) but i loathe essentially two things:
- shitty coworkers (better to hop job at all, but avoiding them in person does help a lot)
- going to the office being mandatory (as in, not having freedom and autonomy)
in my current setup colleagues tend to autonomously organize when to meet in the office and go out for lunch together. and frankly... it's great.
the work itself has a lot of shortcomings (and i'm fixing things left and right from the first week i joined the company) but the people and the autonomy make it great.
lol. Just address the issues, if you can. I've done nothing more.
I don't even see something negative in what I posted - it's pretty positive to me. I didn't say, 'we're all going to die' or say something fatalistic (like the comment I originally responded to).
Unless you mean 'negative' is 'disagrees', which of course badly is miscontrued in open intellectual debate, especially on HN.
Maybe it's been "just" my bad experiences, but in volunteering i've always seen some social "power" dynamics that I don't really like.
Some person somehow gets to be the leader and bosses people around. Those people aren't always the brightest or the most compassionate. They often are pushy, they are somewhat totalitarian, they really don't like their ways to be questioned. Sometimes (not always) they are the most dedicated but only because they made volunteering their identity or their main source of self-esteem (this can either happen because they don't have anything else going on in their life OR because what goes on in their life do not satisfy them).
They are often "open to new people, ideas and contribution" only as long as anything new is very well aligned with their (personal) line of thinking and/or does not question their "authority" in any way.
Either way, I've seen that happen too many times to take volunteering any seriously.
I’ve met some of them. To me: don’t get stuck. If it’s not working, move on. There’s a zillion volunteer orgs, so keep shopping until you find somewhere that you like and appreciates you.
I stay volunteering for the people I work with even more than my investment in the goals of the organization.
I've met all kinds of people and surely enough, some can be toxic, dark triad, etc. I'd say some topics, such as politics and animal welfare, seem more prone to attracting those types. But having a few of them here and there also helps to develop patience and diplomatic skills for de-escalating and creating a healthier environment despite their presence.
In my case, local community orgs are usually run by older, often retired people. Doesn't mean there's no drama, but it's not the same kind of drama you'll find in predominantly younger organizations.
Basically we are about to reach the scale where a single rack of these is a whole datacenter from the nineties or something like that
reply