I think a large part of what people are responding to here is the title, which comes off as something someone who doesn't actually understand the nature of a database workload would write. It may be a simple typo, but "Is YOUR Postgres Read Heavy or Write Heavy?" is the question that can have an answer. "Is Postgres More Appropriate for Read Heavy or Write Heavy workloads?" would also be fine, but it would be a totally different article from the written one.
Even for software practice has shown few are actually willing to pay hundreds to thousands for a lifetime license. And you still need to purchase service packs, etc
> I think some people just have to be the inviters or relationships fall apart.
As annoying as it is, this is definitely true. I've only recently become an inviter, and it's made all the difference. It helps to recognize that not everybody is an inviter/organizer.
It really is exactly this. My default mindset is "everybody's busy with their own lives, so they probably don't have time so I won't even try to invite them to X." Change your assumptions a little bit to instead assume people want to do things. If they say no, so be it. But I've found that people want to be invited out to do more things than they are, so send the invites.
I started swimming with a community team two years ago, and about 4 months in I invited them to also lift weights with me. Now there are about 8 of us that are together 5 mornings per week. Took a chance and invited them on a trip, and now 5 of us are going on a week long trip together.
Find a group of people doing something you like. If it's a tech meetup, community organization, hobby group, whatever. What it is doesn't matter. What matters is that you find people with whom you share _an_ interest. Then take a chance there and say "hey, want to meet up for lunch next week?" Or just say "hey, I'm going to see X next weekend, want to come?"
People complained about censorship within ChatGPT pretty quickly after it was released. The difference is that now people know to look for it, so the evaluations are happening both more quickly and more systematically.
Except the article explains in fairly easy to understand terms how the study came to this theory, and the original paper is linked from that article. The question here gives the impression that the asker read only the headline.
It's not just money. Some companies did DVD linux ports 10-15 years ago which haven't been installable in years. The linux environment isn't as stable as windows.
There are Linux releases on GOG which are not playable on a modern distribution without heroics. Too much churn in system libraries/dependencies/whatever.
The only way to ensure I have a working backup of a GOG installer is to download the Windows release even when Linux is an option.
I think your use of "thin client" here is literally redefining a thin client to be the opposite. The thick client software of MS Word does all the things locally, which is part of what makes it responsive.
One of the roles government can play is to take the negative externalities of an activity (e.g., pollution) and internalize it so that those costs are paid by those who are profiting. The way to do that is to create taxes, fee structures, etc. so that those making money on activities contribute to the overall societal cost.
Effective regulation could actually have made clean coal plants. In principle that junk can be filtered, but it was cheaper to lobby for rules exemptions than to pay for filters.
Sometimes damage can be prevented instead of remediated. Sometimes it isn't about victims getting paid, but preventing people from being victimized.
Effective regulation was not achieved, so it makes sense to demand the next most beneficial action for users. I wouldn't trust the people in charge though.
Not necessarily. Often the incumbent technology remains that way simply because it’s cheaper. If the taxes cause the price to go up enough that it has a similar cost to an alternative, the alternative has a chance of becoming the preferred option. It doesn’t matter where the extra tax money goes for this to be effective.
Sure it would be nice if it helped victims, etc, but getting that part figured out would be a prime target for the incumbents to derail the whole process.
But villifying the companies that sell "oil" is getting ridiculous at this point. Not to mention, the "Big, bad oil companies" are some of the biggest investors in clean energy. They look at themselves as energy companies... the keyboard warriors here seem to thank that their entire marketing budget is going towards denying climate change... Comparing oil to drugs is a prime example of that line of thinking.
