No, not weird. The extra stuff is there to show you ads and/or track your behavior, which generates a stream of revenue for the TV maker. W/o the extra stuff, the only revenue comes from the one-time purchase.
That’s like asking why a fair and just executive shouldn’t be interested in eliminating the overhead of an independent judiciary. Synchronically, it should. Diachronically, that’s one of the things that ensures that it remains fair and just. Similarly for transparency and leakers, though we usually call those leakers “sources speaking on condition of anonymity” or some such. (It does mean that the continued transparency of a modern democratic government depends on people’s continual perpetration of—for the most part—mildly illegal acts. Make of that what you will.)
Both can be true! This is essentially making it easier to do [x] argument, which itself is essentially security through obscurity.
It was always possible to do watermark everything: any nearly-imperceptible bit can be used to encode data that can be used overtly.
Now enabling everyone everywhere to do it and integrate it may have second-order effects that were opposite of one's intention.
It is very convenient thing, for no one to trust what they can see. Unless it was Validated (D) by the Gubmint (R), it is inscrutable and unfalsifiable.
No, a mass terror attack would indiscriminately target victims. This is almost entirely opposite -- an organization widely recognized as a terrorist group (1) is narrowly targeted.
Also because one would have to weigh the alternative.
Imagine Israel declared an old fashioned war against Lebanon as response to the missile strikes originated from its territory.
I think the number of civilian casualties of a conventional "legal" war would be much much higher than the collateral damage of this operation.
Now, does that make it "right"? To me war is horror and is to avoid at all cost. Is a smaller horror a cost one's willing to pay to avoid a bigger horror? Hard to say. But I think it's still important to at least try to see things in a broader context otherwise we may never understand why people on the ground make the choices they do.
Your post is non-sense, because this operation was clearly meant as a starting salvo (to create a confusion) in a war against Lebanon. It was at risk of being discovered, so they triggered the explosions early, to at least get some effect. Reports in Israeli media confirmed this rather quickly after the explosions. Also the mass bombings killing thousand people in a few days started almost right away after the operation.
I don't understand people who think Israel is some benevolent entity that just tries to defend itself while causing as little harm and disruption as possible. They murder innocents left and right every day, create havoc in multiple countries at once, terrorize and occupy people for decades, all while playing a victim card constantly.
This is getting transpiled to SQL, right? So I still have to understand how the (now generated) SQL will perform on my data and DBMS, plus I got to learn this new syntax. This will be a hard sell.
If that was the end of the story, no transpiled language could ever succeed. But they sometimes do. One could say the very same about e.g. MarkDown which typically renders as HTML, so you still have to understand HTML to a degree. And in the right environment (e.g GitHub repo readmes) you can always fall back to HTML in places where the transpiler support is lacking.
The great thing about transpilers is when they 1) produce tractable, nicely formatted output and 2) you get an 'escape hatch' so you can fall back on the transpilation target. Because then you can always 1) check the output to understand details of an unfamiliar construct, 2) just use the target language in cases where you want to copy-paste a solution written in the target, and 3) just opt out of using the transpiler by using the code it produced as a starting point for your new implementation.
TypeScript doesn't introduce new runtime semantics in practice, in 99% of the cases the generated JS is your TS code with types erased. There're no magic keywords that expand into pages of generated JS.
They implemented the `x.y?.z` syntax pretty long before JS did, so that was at least transpiled for a while. I'll bet there are more features like that.
not exactly. Just like with the regular code, most of the stuff done on database are pretty trivial and not resource heavy. And the things that are really perfomance-critical are usually crafted very differently even in SQL
PRQL is not aiming to be an ORM or data layer replacement and is focusing on a specific use case, viz making it simple and ergonomic to write *Analytical Queries*. See the the FAQ [0] for more on this.
In most cases you want to be able to interactively do some data exploration and craft your query as you go along - the sequential flow of PRQL is great for this as you can simply add lines as you go along.
For most people, the RDBMS query optimiser will do a good job of turning the resulting SQL into an optimised query plan. If you need to hand craft the production SQL code for the last few percent of performance, then PRQL gives you full access to the SQL to do that. You probably will still have saved yourself development time by generating the SQL from PRQL in the first place though.
If you're spoiled your friendly neighbourhood DBA will help you there.
The problem I have with these tools is that you then have to reincorporate their optimizations in such a way that the transpiled SQL is identical. If you have to resort to an ORM expression API or raw SQL you gain nothing and are arguably in a worse situation.
SQL query optimisation has been studied since the days IBMers were competing against Quel. If the transpiled SQL has sensible optimisations performance could be equal to or even faster than hand-written SQL. I don't see how this differs from a "language extension" that adds a bit of Pythonic flavour to SQL, which IMO is the right step forward.
Is that a joke, stereotype, or a serious proposition? I've only ever been hunting trips that started so early in the morning that nobody drank anything other than coffee. Afterwards, sure. Maybe there's another way.
> Is that a joke, stereotype, or a serious proposition?
Yes, certainly.
On a multi-day trip where the vast majority of the time is spent not seeing anything, and a vanishing percent is seeing something very briefly and needing to ready your gun, calm your nerves, aim, fire, in less than a second... you find any way possible to minimize time spent in the "calm your nerves" portion and improve the accuracy of the "aim, fire" one.
If that ties in with improved mood during the "not see anything" potion, even better.
No, in small doses it enhances performance by lowering heart rate, reducing anxiety, slowing breathing, etc. All are important in sports like rifle shooting.
I compete in pistol shooting at an amateur level. I have never been even slightly intoxicated when shooting a firearm. But I shoot 10m air pistol[1] at home for practice, and I've tried it while a little tipsy. So I can tell you that for sure, 3+ drinks will have you thinking you're doing well when in fact your vision is so delayed from reality that you cannot call your shots accurately. You'll think it was a good shot and it was a 7.
But one or two drinks in, there is a small performance boost. It comes from not 2nd-guessing yourself. You just hold on target and watch it happen.
Pistol shooting is a lot about quieting the mind because nobody can hold the gun perfectly steady. You get the best results from accepting a little bit of natural wobble, and smoothly operating the trigger during the smallest part of that wobble pattern. If you try to shoot the gun right as the sights cross the bullseye you will typically throw the shot off badly. Even if you don't yank the trigger, your reaction time is such that the wobble has moved on by the time you react to it looking perfect, so you end up grouping all around the 10 ring instead of in it this way.
The other thing you'll do in pursuit of perfection is hold too long on the target, not happy with how large your wobble is. You end up holding for 10+ seconds and by the time you break the shot your vision is suffering from the Troxler effect[2] and your hold has gotten worse, not better -- you just think it's good because you aren't seeing it as clearly.
It is best to steadily break the shot not at a specific instant, but anytime within your mostly 9-ring ideal wobble area. You settle into this good wobble zone for a few seconds, perhaps from 3 to 7 seconds after putting the gun on target. By Gaussian distribution you will shoot a lot of 10s, a fair amount of 9s, and a scarce handful of 8s.
But I cannot tell you how hard it is to convince yourself to do this! The mind thinks it can make the gun fire when it touches the 10. It also thinks that the wobble is way, way bigger than it really is, and that you'll shoot 7s if you let it happen. You'll even panic subconsciously right before the shot breaks when it looks "imperfect" and twitch to try to fix the alignment at the last moment -- always terrible.
A little depressant makes it much easier to relax and confidently break the shot in that "good enough" zone. Don't get me wrong, it'll never turn an amateur like me (520 - 550, depending on the day) into a top shooter (580+). But it does make it easier to perform on the 540+ side of my average.
I shot rimfire bullseye with my father growing up, but I live in a city now and have gotten away from the hobby. Action shooting takes up all the air in American gun culture; I always found it very calming.
Action shooting is definitely the hotter sport right now. But I think bullseye will stay around, especially as the current generation of action shooters ages into it. It has one huge advantage over action: every competitor can shoot at the same time, up to the capacity of the range. If you go to a bullseye match, you get to shoot for a few hours. If you go to an action pistol match you spend hours waiting around only to shoot for a few minutes.
