Beyond the training boundary. Seems a propos for "an infinite visual browser". I'm just not clear on how we get to the beyond part of it.

https://flipbook.page/n/f8982ddfd3ef4cbcb2ad8449d7d049b6

There's John Cleese's Meetings Bloody Meetings for good meeting hygiene training. Its entertaining and educational.

https://archive.org/details/meetingsbloodymeetings

You can implement a BTree with nodes stored in file-backed memmaps. It's plenty fast for the usual business case.

I'll take this opportunity to remind anyone on Azure that if you enable service endpoints on a subnet without applying service endpoint policies, anyone with the resourceid of an affected subnet can silently backdoor your network. Your NSGs do not matter for service endpoints.

Backdoora private network how? Or do you just mean that an NSG wont apply like you might have expected?

You can audit your dependencies for crates with security vulnerabilities reported to the RustSec Advisory Database, also block unmaintained crates, and enforce your license requirements using SPDX expressions with cargo-audit and cargo-deny.

You can ensure that third-party Rust dependencies have been audited by a trusted entity with cargo-vet.

And you should have taken a look at where those 3M locs come from, it's usually from Microsoft's windows-rs crates that are transitively included in your dependencies through default features and build targets of crates built to run on windows.

At some point we should just commit the AST to git and render it however it is preferred in IDE.

This has always made queries unpredictable in many scenarios and it should be a feature to turn nulls off entirely and swap them out with Option<T> instead.

How would you handle unmatched outer joins?

By having a default value (non-null) for each declared type of those columns.

Or, the user must define a default value in the query itself.

Yes, tedious; but, precise and forces the programmer to really prepare for the "unknown" scenario.

a left outer join b yields tuples of (A, Option<B>), a full outer join b yields tuples of (Option<A>, Option<B>)

I don't care about some scores going up. Newer models need to stop regressing on tasks they were already good at. 4o sucks at LLVM and related tasks were as legacy GPT 4 is relatively ok at it.

What if the DRM/license was based around offering binaries built with 8/16/32/64 bit limits in data types and max records per table, each being its own edition and priced accordingly? Eg yearly license of $8/160/3,200/640,000.

It's very creative! LOL But in practice most my tables that are uncapped end up with IDs are 64bits and i suspect not being the only one.. 32b is in fact quite small ~ 4B rows.

And so you would pay for the largest tier as it sounds like you have big data needs? ;P Whereas my company--which only had tens of millions of users and millions of dollars a year in revenue--certainly never had any tables with more than 4 billion rows... (not that I think this licensing model works or makes any sense at all, to be clear).