|
Kent Sharkey wrote: "Stuff"
Man, are you nice...
I would have said "crap" in your place
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
How to choose the right database
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Since each query is done on a table — the query execution time depends on the size of the table. This is a significant limitation that requires us to keep our tables relatively small and perform optimizations on our DB in order to scale.
In relational DBs scaling is done by adding more computing power to the machine that holds your DB, this method is called ‘Vertical Scaling’.
Clearly the author has never heard of indexing.
|
|
|
|
|
I must admit that the same sentence jumped out at me too when I first read it. I thought they may have been referring to something else, as that's exactly what indexes are for.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Indexing, query optimizer, primary keys, foreign relationships, ... it's all so much 80-ies and 90-ies - when you had to deal with hundreds of millions of records and you were lucky if you had a server with a gig of RAM. One of the projects my company dealing with have a server pre-requisite for 256Gb!!! RAM (not a hard drive) - I guess it's because it was programmed by the guys that at some point lost their developer jobs and now writing articles like that one.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a fan of a game called "Oxygen not included"; for a long time, it included the name "pokeshell molt" for two different items. It may be new to the developers that humans need a "unique" name to differentiate between the two. If they named the same and show up in a list, then you can only make a choice by trial-and-error.
One of the basics of databases when learning what a primary key is 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc's complaint is only #2 on my facepalm list.
#1 is the cheatsheet at the end. It says to use any of several specialist NoSQL databases if you're doing the workload they're hyper-optimized for. So far so good, if a little bit obvious. But for anything else use either a relational DB or a generalist NoSQL DB (document) which is an absolute give up for the one case where someone with a minimally functioning brain would need to consider what the best option for their workload is. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Cloud-native applications function differently from the software you deploy onsite. Testing the software works differently, too. There's more of a chance for rain at the very least
|
|
|
|
|
Google's Project Zero team is quite well-known for discovering vulnerabilities in the software developed by the company itself as well as those built by other firms. Isn't that sweet of them?
|
|
|
|
|
In a new study, researcher Melvin Vopson predicts that the weight of this information could equal that of half the Earth by the year 2245, creating what the study calls an "information catastrophe." Heavy.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Vopson tells Inverse he's still optimistic that it will be proven correct based on the voluminous amount of bad drugs he's taken throughout the years.
|
|
|
|
|
Subquote: voluminous amount of bad drugs
Since when is there a difference between bad and good ones? All of it is bad, but sometimes it is better then the alternative. I done more coming from 25 pills/day (and then some outside that); it's a cheap cop-out for getting his name out with bullshit. People will remember the name, it is a marketing article.
If you confuse information for energy you could dream of an engine powered by writing the bible over and over again. Even in my bad moments I won't suggest that; in fact, this one of those days and still explained why it is nonsense.
For those curious; did MAO-inhibitors and DMT while taking a lot of "bad" prescription drugs, including immune-suppressants, cortisones and sleeping pills. Morphine my favorite. You don't rearrange physics on any drugs that influence your thinking, and you certainly don't write an article on physics. You wonder if that spot on the wall is a bug and watch it paranoidly moving. Then you hit it, just to be sure. And you hit it hard after seeing "Aliens" that day. But there's no change in information when I do, only in data; and data has no weight at all.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
While is is obvious that data storage cannot grow without limit, we do not know the minimum energy required for storing a bit. Even the minimum theoretical energy is based on assumptions that may turn out to be incorrect.
Note that the energy requirements have decreased drastically over the last 70 years. HDDs, for example, are much faster, have higher capacities, and use less power that they did in the past. This is without taking into account newer technologies such as flash memory, or yet to be developed technologies of the future.
In summary, it is much too early to make such predictions.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Academics like to make predictions of doom. Malthus, the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich, and more recent Chicken Littles who fail to take technological advances and other factors into account. Soon our solar system will be down to 7 planets!
In the late 1800s, it was predicted that we'd eventually be knee-deep in horseshit. This prediction turned out to be spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: While is is obvious that data storage cannot grow without limit, we do not know the minimum energy required for storing a bit.
The minimum energy required to store a bit isn't relevant for this article.
Original author wrote: In a nutshell, Landauer proposed that destroying a bit of information requires a comparable dissipation of energy.
Changing information costs energy, like it does when ripping out a page of your diary.
Here he implies information has mass. It doesn't; all the matter in the universe, it's heat and motion, are data and not convertible into either energy not mass. The entire universes' mass, it's warmth, acceleration, direction, and basic element is data (and yes, I need random data, and masses of it for encryption).
But information is neither energy, nor does it contain mass.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: In summary, it is much too early to make such predictions.
I'm not making a prediction; saying right now that this is bullshit. Hard drives don't become heavier over time; the magnetic field doesn't change the amount of atoms. Writing in a paper diary adds only the weight of the ink. While ripping out a page of my diary costs energy, it's not related to the information on that page. I might tear out a page with bullshit drawings, or one with a lot of chicken recipes, it will cost the same energy, regardless of information.
Basic computing also laughs at the idea; data is not information - data becomes that once we have a use for it. The basic location of each sub-atomic particle in the entire observable universe is (semi-random) data. Landauer acts as if both the same, and if the cost of modifying is related to its mass. Wait, not there yet; let me burn your diary. Does more information give of more heat? Or does only the mass influence that?
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Note that the energy requirements have decreased drastically over the last 70 years. HDDs, for example, are much faster, have higher capacities, and use less power that they did in the past.
And your old HD's are heavier, I bet.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
The entropy of an undetermined bit is higher than that of a bit with a known value - the undetermined bit has two possible states, while the bit with a known value has only one possible state. This is true of any collection of bits - an undetermined set of bits has a higher entropy than a set of bits of known value.
It takes energy to lower entropy in part of a system (while increasing it elsewhere, so the total entropy of the system is non-decreasing), e.g. in an air-conditioner. In this sense, the act of data storage requires energy. The energy does not necessarily appear in the storage device; an air conditioner takes energy out of the cooled area, releasing it into the environment.
It is possible to use the temperature differential between a cool room and the hot outside to generate energy (though you won't get back as much usable energy as you put into cooling the room). Similarly, the destruction of data (randomization of the bit set) could possibly be used to generate energy (though you would not get back as much usable energy as you put into storing the data). However, I strongly doubt that our descendants will power their machinery by the destruction of cat videos.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: The entropy of an undetermined bit is higher than that of a bit with a known value
Entropy yes, mass no. Entropy has no relation to mass.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: It takes energy to lower entropy in part of a system (while increasing it elsewhere, so the total entropy of the system is non-decreasing), e.g. in an air-conditioner. In this sense, the act of data storage requires energy.
That's not data storage; it is a change of state, yes, but not information you're storing. The state of a mass, including its sub-nuclear properties, is data, yes; but not information. The fact that information requires energy to store, doesn't make information/data to have mass nor energy.
That's why I mentioned that all subnuclear particles weight and direction is "data"; doesn't matter what their weight is, nor what they are accelerated to; doesn't change the amount of data. That's not information though, and ordering it to our likes changes state that costs energy, yes; but that is not a cost of information storage, just a cost of changing state.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: It is possible to use the temperature differential between a cool room and the hot outside to generate energy
Again, doing as if a change of state and a change in data equals a change in information. It doesn't. You may generate energy (which would cost something else), but that says nothing about the weight of information.
Let me explain it different; information is merely human perception, all else is data. Information itself doesn't have mass, and you can't increase the weight of wood by writing on it (apart from the weight of the ink).
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Information - the new weapon of mass destruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Is there something wrong with Earth's gravity in future?"
|
|
|
|
|
If fifteen men pissing in a circle, that is information, including the landing of the piss, its velocity, angle, volume and both smell and taste.
This article tries to explain how that data equals information and hence, mass. Not observed data is not information, and changing state of something requires energy yes, but does not give mass to an abstract idea called "information". Changing state requires energy, but information is merely a human concept of ordering those states.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
We build homes out of bricks for lots of reasons. Not going to replace the brick that came with my laptop for a while
Going to get corrected on my math, but it looks like a 1200 sqft house would be able to store about 0.5kWh? Yay?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: “Bricks are so special to humans. We live in them, we’re always interacting with them,” he said. “We just want to improve them.”
Why does something always have to be "improved?"
From Energy storing bricks for stationary PEDOT supercapacitors | Nature Communications[^]
Quote: Here, we develop a supercapacitor using a brick’s hematite microstructure as reactant to vapor-deposit a nanofibrillar coating of the conducting polymer poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT).
Right. Like I want to live in a house where the walls are coated with a chemical I can't even pronounce.
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve got an oddly satisfying feeling when I think of rewriting code from scratch. Making new bugs is better than fixing old ones
(Microsoft's new motto)
((Google doesn't bother either - they just cancel the program))
(((Apple just tells you that's what the designers intended)))
|
|
|
|
|
Penetration testers share common security failings that leave companies vulnerable to attack. Being connected to a network, and being powered on?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
