paperplatter

4 ms·

1.
by paperplatter 2y ago
The easiest fix for this is the "WHERE 1=1" or "WHERE true"
2.
by paperplatter 2y ago
1=1 is not a security risk
3.
by paperplatter 2y ago
I get how this isn't good. But how else would you handle multi-field filtering, keep all the ANDs and use (product_id = $1 OR $1 IS NULL) so the unset filters are no-op? That's ok as long as the query planner is smart enough.
4.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Yeah, so often do I have an EXPLAIN ANALYZE query.txt file I'm repeatedly editing in one window and piping into psql in another to try and make something faster. So I put WHERE true at the top.
5.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Sounds like that DBMS would work better with serial int PKs
6.
by paperplatter 2y ago
I feel like residential ipv6 would be at least a little further along if routers simply always enabled NAT by default for it, like what cell providers do. Solves all these questions and problems for inexperienced users. Instead, you gotta a
7.
by paperplatter 2y ago
RFC 2765 isn't about keeping ipv4 blocks in ipv6, if I understand correctly. It's about translator boxes for ipv6-only hosts to talk to ipv4-only ones by acquiring temporary ipv4 addresses.
8.
by paperplatter 2y ago
4-to-5 NAT would be effectively the same if that's what you use, but I don't see why you'd need one.
9.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Hm. Tempted to try pytorch on my Mac for this. I have an AS chip rather than a Nvidia GPU.
10.
by paperplatter 2y ago
I agree then, the defaults are a problem.
11.
by paperplatter 2y ago
I'm not saying we can avoid updating routers/hosts/DNS/etc, but it's only one piece of the migration puzzle. Otherwise we'd be done already. I elaborated when responding to a similar question: https:/&#x2
12.
by paperplatter 2y ago
The second thing is the problem with not having NAT. On a home or corp network, I like NAT. I'm not trying to host 20 servers there. Sure ipv6 can use it too, but it's never default and often not supported on the router. So yeah,
13.
by paperplatter 2y ago
But you're still using ipv4, which cannot be upgraded in-place the way I described. I responded to a sibling comment about the second question.
14.
by paperplatter 2y ago
You still make the same big changes, but the difference is you don't have to do them all at the same time. You also skip the complicated add-ons of ipv6 and don't reassign everything. Ipv5 as you call it: Phase 1 is getting router
15.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Yes, everything has to be updated eventually, but going forward doesn't have to be this hard. A network and its hosts could start supporting ipv6 without changing anything else. Same addr and routes as before, same NAT, and no DNS6&#x2
16.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Yeah, the route fragmentation a disadvantage of what I've had in mind. My focus is just on getting things to speak v6 to fix the scarcity problem first. Maybe at some point the owners could've swapped addresses back to defrag thin
17.
by paperplatter 2y ago
But then you're still using ipv4.
18.
by paperplatter 2y ago
That's my proposal, ipv6 with extra steps. As in, incremental steps instead of one impossibly big change. tl;dr keep the pre-existing v4 /32 blocks day 1, and the rest follows. Edit: I said "my" proposal, but pretty sure
19.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Not so. IPv4->6 removes all existing v4 address blocks and redoes the addressing scheme. Those changes weren't necessary for expanding the address space. This implies that day 1 of using ipv6, all your addresses are different (and w
20.
by paperplatter 2y ago
IMO the separate-stack nature of ipv6 was a mistake. I can see why they did it, but the changes could've been a lot more incremental otherwise, and we might've been done already. Everyone talks about the biggest change being the 1
21.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Seems clear that he considers Rust a good thing. And if he hasn't gone back on his C++ opinions, that would suggest he likes Rust way more than C++, right?
22.
by paperplatter 2y ago
I know how to compile and link C. I've never done C<->JS FFI but could probably figure it out. But if I have relatively small C code in single files, why bother? I'll take the easy route unless there's a clear reason no
23.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Not Android
24.
by paperplatter 2y ago
If they want to be for-profit because that's how they get the investment to build GPT-4, fine, do it from the start. That doesn't justify the switch.
25.
by paperplatter 2y ago
So does OpenAI, the nonprofit, own a for-profit corp that does everything?
26.
by paperplatter 2y ago
(Which btw isn't exclusive to emojis, there's also Hangul Jamo that the Unicode standard says is used for "archaic" Korean characters, but emojis are probably the main use case.)
27.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Refs in C++ go against this, right? At the call site, it's not clear that you're passing in a ref instead of a value. I don't mind it too much cause at least the rules are the same for everything, not different for structs vs
28.
by paperplatter 2y ago
It can get tough with the native dependencies involved.
29.
by paperplatter 2y ago
For some apps, I can see this. Question is, did the startups regret taking the shortcut upfront, or were they fine paying later for the improved version? Btw, sometimes I think about how much I've been paid by various people to move a
30.
by paperplatter 2y ago
Ah, it's coming back to me now. I remember when they fixed that and I was relieved.

More ›