Just an endless sequence of misbehavior and we’re waving it off as rows work good for specific lookups but columns for aggregations, yet here it is all the other stuff that is unreasonably slow.
It's an example of old things being new again maybe. Or reinventing the wheel because the wheel wasn't known to them.
Yes I know, nobody wants to pay that tax or make that guy richer, but databases like Oracle have had JPPD for a long time. It's just something the database does and the optimizer chooses whether to do it or not depending on whether it's the best thing to do or not.
And to not mis-represent Germany too badly - that 14.6% is split between the employer and employee
Let's take France. Looks like it's 8% you pay:
You’ll pay 8% of your income (that the French government is allowed to tax, after an additional standard deduction of around $11,000 per person). As a ballpark figure, an individual who has income to declare to the French government of $30,000 will pay around $1,520 a year in healthcare.
However, you are also only reimbursed 70-80% of your costs (depending on what it is), similar to the NA system(s), where your employer health plan may only reimburse a percentage as well but where no 'top-up' exists. In order to make up the remaining amount in excess of the 70% reimbursement (80% for hospital stays), many French residents opt for private, or “top-up,” insurance. Several options exist, and rates vary from $36 to $72, on average, per month
https://internationalliving.com/countries/france/health/Seems ridiculous the US doesn't have it
Let's look at another country that has "great universal health care". Let's look to Europe, that's always "up there", right?
For statutory or public health insurance, you pay for your insurance through social contributions, the rate of which is 14.6% of the income as determined by the Federal Ministry of Health for 2024.
https://www.germany-visa.org/insurances-germany/health-insur...Pretty sure that's up but let's assume 15% of income.
I find most programmers don't like code reviews. They do it because it's required by their job and most will just click the approve button. Or I guess in a more dysfunctional org, argue about formatting or something, which should just be done automatically so that nobody has to even think about it.
What they like doing is the coding and problem solving.
And now you want to make programming into code review?
How's that gonna go?
I.e. that would be the appropriate thing to do if you're trying to prevent leakage of information i.e. enumeration of resources. But you should not return 401 for this still. A 404 is the appropriate response for pretending that "it's just not there" if you ask me. You can't return 404 when it's not there and a 403 when you have no access if enumeration is bad.
So for example, if you don't have access to say the settings of a repo you have access to, a 403 is OK. No use pretending with a 404, because we all know the settings are just a feature of Github.
However, pretending that a repo you don't have access to but exists isn't there with a 404 is appropriate because otherwise you could prove the existence of "superSecretRepo123" simply by guessing and getting a 403 instead of a 404.
But that's just plain wrong and a proper developer would be allowed to change that. If you're not authenticating properly, you get a 401. That means you can't prove you're who you say you are.
If you are past that, i.e. we know that you are who you say you are, then the proper return code is 403 for saying "You are not allowed to access what you're trying to access, given who you are".
Which funnily enough seems to be a very elusive concept to many humans as well, never mind an LLM.
That said, don't think that just because you (try to) have few bosses that there isn't some form of hierarchy in which people don't take credit for other people's work.
Sure, maybe there's no boss by title that people suck up to and take credit for stuff to look good to them. But there very definitely will be the "alphas" in the group that everyone looks up to and wants to look good to and the taking credit for stuff will be done to impress those people.
So, if you weed out this kind of stuff successfully well enough, again, I commend you. But I doubt it's as complete as you may want to think. It's just a different looking game of favours and sucking up to with less easily visible (can't just look at title to figure out who to suck up to) lines.
For some people this will be positive as they're good at figuring out who to suck up to in that situation while others may need the title to figure that out. I bet many socially awkward / socially less aware people find it easier to navigate titles they can read in an org chart than sniffing these out of the "sociosphere".
The next big city does not take water from an aquifer at all but from a river. One that's also currently lower on water than usual, which is not great because upstream cities put their sewage in there and that city does the same "downstream" (which will add to the problem cities even further downstream are going to have that also use the river water).
That seems like an upstream problem, if he was genuinely concerned about being "obsoleted" look upstream to why that might be the case, and fix it so people aren't looking over their shoulder worried they will get swapped out by the next cog.
The guy was pretty good at "dodging" work he didn't like in general ;)
Overall the consulting company we were with was pretty good about keeping their clients/projects going and keeping our consultants in the same projects for a long time.