I've always found ORMs to be performance killers. It always worked out better to write the SQL directly. The idea that you should have a one-to-one correspondence between your data objects and your database objects is disastrous unless your data storage is trivial.
The issue of creating a DB wrapper doesn't go away by using an ORM. One of the complaints about ORMs I have, in practice, is people often create another wrapper around it.
Java doesn't steer you into object pools. I wrote Java code for 20 years and never used a cache to avoid allocating objects, and never saw a colleague use one. The person you were talking to doesn't know what he's doing.
I honestly don't know who is still buying HP products, haven't seen one around me in years, probably just clueless people walking into a store and thinking "I've heard this name before"
Transitioning to renewables makes economic sense for the Saudis because they make more money selling a barrel of oil for transportation fuel and generating power with wind and solar.
The US has vast reserves of coal and natural gas. We generally don't use oil to generate power either -- oil is something like 0.4% of the total power generated, because we have vast amounts of natural gas and coal to use instead.
The situation isn't the result of some crafty master plan on the part of the Saudis. It's jusut what makes sense.
That would break the system completely. The only reason any of this holds together at all is medical providers shift costs from one patient to another. Medicare doesn't pay enough for the care patients are provided, so hospitals charge private patients extra. If you introduced price caps either hospitals would start to go out of business or they'd stop accepting Medicare entirely.
Firefly has a rabid fan base, but it's not very large. The movie did... okay. Enough to pay for itself, but not enough to interest anyone in making more content in that universe.
When the show was first released it was cancelled after half a season because it was expensive to make and couldn't compete in the ratings with slap-dash, almost free to produce "reality TV".
Do we still think clearing beta amyloid plaques will halt the progress of Alzheimer's? My impression is we're treating marker for the disease and not the cause.
That's true in the US as well. It's because that kind of crime undermines faith in the financial system, something it must have to function. People grumble about white collar criminals getting light sentences, but the easiest way to get sent to jail for fifty years is to swindle a bunch of pensioners out of their life's savings.
That is if you do it the stupid way. If you do it the plausibly deniable way, or with sufficient political backing, such as the current US president or one of the US senators from Florida, then nothing happens, except maybe gaining more power.
Always have your conversations in person and have underlings sign documents relating to transactions.
Also, you can systemically steal from future generations with no consequence, as a voter and leader. Promise people today big pensions and retiree healthcare, underfund today by telling actuaries to use unrealistic assumptions, or just straight up ignore funding recommendations, and then let the debt pile up for others to deal with.
There's a huge difference though, at least in the US: If a company (or very wealthy individual) commits a financial crime, then after they are caught (maybe) and investigated (maybe) and they mount an unsuccessful defense (maybe) and they are fined (maybe) and they lose their five appeals (maybe), after all that happens, they might pay a small token fine that doesn't even approach the damage they did, and have to pinky-swear to a judge that they'll never do it again. Nobody's going to prison. If a normie individual commits a similar financial crime, they're going to be financially ruined and go to prison.
I don't think this is true, though, is it?. Jeffrey Skilling got a 24 year sentence for his involvement in the Enron collapse. Ken Lay would have gotten even more but for the fact that he died before he could be sentenced.
Bernie Madoff got 150 years in prison for his Ponzi scheme.
All three of those guys are the very definition of wealthy and powerful, and there are endless other, albeit smaller, examples.
>"It's because that kind of crime undermines faith in the financial system"
LOL. The whole system is based on constantly stealing fruits of one's labor by way of inflation and 2 classes of haves and have-nots in regards to real assets. How can regular Joe have faith in it is beyond my comprehension.
I was about to comment that there was no amount of money I would take in return for spending time in prison but then I realized that of course that’s not true. It would be fun to create a survey that would show a visualization of where people tend to fall on the time/money axis for this.
It logically should track closely to the person's age and life expectancy and "legit job" earning potential. I would spend my years 20-29 in jail for $400M, wealth that I'd enjoy for the rest of my life, without hesitation. Heck, I'd have been willing to spend my twenties in prison for $40M. That's still life-changing never-have-to-work-again money. 30-39? I'd probably do it for $400M. 40-49? Hmm, now that's getting kind of tough. Maybe I'd do it for $1B. 50-59? I don't think I could physically do it, and given the number of years I had left, I probably wouldn't even be able to enjoy whatever sum we are talking about.
This is kind of why I want to make this survey now because there’s no way I’d spend a decade of my life in prison for any amount of money. I would do six months for $3M. I’d maybe do 12 for $10M. But beyond that…I don’t know, even a year seems like too long to be behind bars.
Would a guarantee of a different kind of prison environment change your mind? For example, prison conditions in the Netherlands versus the US? If you were allowed 6+ hours of positive, structured activities a day? Less than if you weren't in prison of course, but as we're talking about 'How much is it worth to you...'
Sure - I think it would decrease the amount of money I’d insist on, and/or increase the amount of time I’d tolerate, but only by a factor of 1.5 or so. Conversely, if I had to stay on an American supermax facility, the calculus would swing way in the other direction.
I could have had a whole lot of fun in my thirties and forties with that kind of money. At this point it would just mean iron clad financial security and not much more. Even if I could afford Gabe Newell size yacht I wouldn't buy one.
You can already do that now?
It’s actually much harder to “better” yourself when in jail than outside.
The conditions range from pretty bad to horrible. Of course if you go to jail in like Sweden it might not be so bad. But everywhere else hell naw
People in this thread seem to think that jail is something like vacation.
Idk, in my hometown, jail is seen by some as being preferable to winter village life. A few people commit petty crimes for the purpose of a 6 month lockup until spring (or at least this was the case 3 decades ago).
Could be that Alaska has (had) particularly great jails?
Of course not. But I used to know a group of guys who were born fabulously wealthy. None of them were happy. For them to get a job it would be essentially working for free relative to the wealth they have.
I'm sure there are people out there who would find meaning in creating art of some type, or turning their fortune into an even bigger fortune, but I suspect those people are rare.
The people I know who do not have to work to ensure healthcare for their kids seem happier than the ones who do have to work. Being able to go on vacations for extended durations or at convenient times is also heavily utilized.
I’d argue it’s more an attribute of being a driven, difficult to satisfy, competitive, human.
Which correlates strongly with ‘success’ in any system where there is a clear metric for success, which is certainly true for our current economic system eh? If there was a system they wanted to compete in where the metric was ‘happiness’ measured by some concrete metric, I bet those same people would be as aggressively ‘happy’ with however it was measured too - and just as actually miserable.
That those people are rarely (if ever) happy is a side effect of those attributes, and a core part of what makes them the way they are.
After all, if they were able to be happy with anything less…. They’d have stopped already? And hence have less/a lower ‘score’ on that particular metric? And probably actually be happier.
Notably, I know plenty of people who are very happy with nothing - dirt poor - and plenty of people who are also miserable with nothing too.
The difference is, it’s a lot less competitive being dirt poor eh?
No, but imagine if every time you did something there was a thought in the back of your mind that said "I could have paid someone else to do this without materially affecting my wealth."
I watch a lot of sailing channels on YouTube. The most interesting part is when you get a couple buying an old sailboat and refitting it on a tight budget. It always takes longer and costs more than they anticipated, but watching the struggle is really interesting. And when they finally set sail for Hawaii or whatever they have a huge sense of accomplishment.
But imagine if they were fabulously wealthy. Sure, they could set themselves a budget, but even for them that would feel... contrived. The whole thing would feel like LARPing as someone without so much money. So that sense of accomplishment is going to be out of reach, even assuming they didn't just buy a brand new boat.
There's some truth to this, but most of the news that gets disseminated on social media was originally gathered by a professional journalist somewhere.
reply