threepipeproblm

I expected all of those downvotes, honestly.

I expected that downvote too. On Hacker News you have to pander to get points, but then you can spend them by saying interesting stuff.

Wow a downvote in less time than the linked video takes to watch... I am shocked by this. Just kidding I expected this. BTW if you don't like "mansplaining" you'll probably like the video.

Mainsplaining Manspreading https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoYu58tp3wc

"As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was intentional."

But not a disgusting remark like when you stated that 'the "genocide" of native Americans was a result of European diseases, not barbarism' in another thread and argued that evidence of deliberate killing was more like a "rounding error". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17023220 Not disgusting like that, right?

I just provided the historical evidence. It was written in the past tense. Do you think he fictionalized his account so that hundreds of years later you'd have a stronger argument on HN lol? Can you think of another reason to fictionalize such an account? Will be be ignoring the fact that just a few posts ago you maintained with equal confidence that this could not have happened at all?

More importantly, the argument that American settlers and later government policies deliberately exterminated large populations of natives does not even remotely rest on this. Are you really conflating them? Are you that ignorant of the history?

You also don't seem to understand the concept of genocide, the whole point of which is that it's extra bad to kill off a population as it gets smaller.

What a disgusting excuse for a thought process. What is it do you think that's wrong with you that gives you such a deep need to ensure that your ancestors were morally pure?

Ah, you seem to be a bit nutters. So I'm not going to engage further but I do want to give you a serious response to the argument you seem to be making.

First, the same argument above is also an argument that, say, integers, are not "Computer SCIENCE".

More to the point, you might enjoy reading the work of Charles Pierce and other logicians of that era who began to explore many variations on formal logic. Note that just as many operations arise from trinary relations in bivalent logic. Are binary relations "Computer SCIENCE", but not trinary or higher relations? Before you answer, you might want to look into whether all possible relations can be expressed using only binary relations (hint: nope).

Look deeper into the concept of functional completeness (with respect to a subset of operators), which you reference above without naming. You might be able to understand how many of those many trivalent operators are actually necessary to reason with (hint: not very many, hardly more than for bivalent logic, where, as you note, we only tend to use a few, and need not worry about it).

Consider also the relationship between operators folks have identified as useful in bivalent vs trivalent logic (hint: they not picking at random).

Could it be that just as with the 16 binary operators, many of which have relations to one another (e.g. inverses and complements, among others) that the trinary operators could fall into similar groups, which, making the 3^9 number you mentioned seem a whole lot less complex? Could that be why it's neither necessary nor customary to work with all the operators in either sort of logic?

Once you've caught up to state of the art in formal logic as of the 1930's you might have a new perspective -- perhaps you might even begin to let us know when "Computer SCIENCE" will catch up!

I suppose this is sarcasm but the results are quite intuitive to me. From my perspective, it's trivial to construct the truth tables for trivalent logic based on a sense of what "should" be in them. Maybe give it a try.

Unknowns are not even remotely problematic for logic. Not only SQL, but illustrious languages such as VB6, include built-in trivalent logic.

Do you really need this spelled out, like for real? Your statement that the genocide was not due to overt actions by Europeans is false. Accidentally wiping out 90% of a population through spread of disease is one thing. Deliberately killing off much of the rest is another.. you seem to think of that as a rounding error lol? I also provided a citation in which an American soldier admits to attempting to infect natives with small pox, despite his lack of germ theory. This also explicitly contradicts your account.

Well that's an oversimplification. Diseases wiped out 90% before they ever saw a soldier. BUT...

'Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."' -- http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.c...

More commonly rumored to be used by British against Americans, though.

They also banned Christmas, and most sports.

TOML is supposed to be easy to parse.

Reminds me of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradox

Except there is no evidence he said that, is there? Wikiquote lists it as "suspect".

If you are basing this on the idea that something that can store a graph is a graph database, I'm not sure that definition really holds up.

It has been argued -- for example by Neo4j, which is one of the leading graph databases -- that index-free adjacency is an essential feature for any real graph database, or as they put it, "Index-free adjacency is the key differentiatior of native graph processing." https://neo4j.com/blog/why-graph-databases-are-the-future/

By my reading, this system doesn't feature index-free adjacency as it uses relational tables as the substrate for edges. Thus EdgeDB won't be especially well suited type of graph traversals and queries that people actually select graph databases for. Which seems like a compelling reason not to identify it as a graph database.

This one https://steemit.com/ is interesting... would be more interesting if the percentage of non-cryptocurrency-related articles were higher.

There are numerous studies showing positive effects of seltzer, and a few suggesting negative effects. But in what world can we compare this to diet soda?

> What's more unclear is whether the sugar-like taste of artificial sweeteners affect the body's blood sugar regulation.

How is this unclear... every study I've seen shows that artificial sweeteners are similarly obesogenic to actual sugar. Some of them also spike blood sugar quite a bit.

Several studies have also showed that artificial sweeteners change gut bacteria. One study I can't find right now showed a single dose of sucralose significantly changed gut bacteria composition. Here is an article about this concept from Sci Am https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweete...

Sigh, the flatearthers are going to love this one.

This Maine company recently started selling Yaupon. No affiliation. https://www.surthrival.com/products/yaupon-tea

I'm sorry, but describing the diet that scientists literally describe as "obligate" for cats as somehow being forced on them requires mental gymnastics I can't quite comprehend.

It depends on what you mean by toxic, but most healthy animal foods contain basically zero antinutrients or toxins. (There may be a small amount environmental toxins.) Thus animals whose diets consist almost exclusively of prey do not evolve livers that are good at filtering out toxins.

While I don't mean to imply that all plants are going to be like poisons to cats at any dose, almost all plants do contain antinutrients, which can be potentially toxic at some dose to an obligate carnivore.

Most of the toxin load in omnivorous diets, including the typical human diet, comes from stuff plants produce naturally. This makes a lot of evolutionary sense; chemical defenses are the only ones plants have and there is usually a subtle mix of nutrients and antinutrients even in popular domesticated foods. Apple seeds contains cyanide. Wheat contains lectins and phytates that block mineral absorption. In India's largest chickpea producing region they have to put a price floor on chickpeas, otherwise poor people will eat enough of them to die. I am not exaggerating when I say that basically all plant foods contain antinutrients, and like anything it's the doses that makes the poison.

(Another subtlety is there are few pure antinutrients. I mentioned phytates, which can cause mineral deficiencies in humans at high enough doses. But phytates may also be protective against cancer. This doesn't change the basic argument I'm making about whether cats are designed to filter out all the chemical warfare that plants unleash, in significant doses.)

This is basic stuff, although contrary to many people's uninformed opinion. Feeding a bunch of plants to a predator is dangerous in the short term and abusive over the long term. I'm sorry I don't have any specific links for cats and liver toxicity specifically, but in general you can look to "The Killer Salad", which is a chapter in one of Michael Pollan's books, or to the writings of Paul Jaminet if you want to verify what I am saying bout the majority of toxins in mixed diets coming from plant foods.

Here are a couple of cat specific links that only mention the liver/toxin issue in passing, they look at the issue more broadly: https://animalwellnessmagazine.com/cats-cant-vegetarian/ http://messybeast.com/veggiecat.htm

If you google for example foods and plants that are considered safe for dogs to eat -- and then compare to cats -- you'll find the list of stuff that's safe for dogs is dramatically longer. Same thing for essential oils, many of them can be very damaging to cats in small doses. It's because of what I have explained above.. predator animals are not evolved to filter out stuff the way others are... they are designed to eat animals who have livers evolved to do the filtering for them. There are plants described as "safe" for cats to eat and you will occasionally see a cat eat small doses of random plants. They are talking about occasional consumption. But making any plant the staple of a cat's diet is cruel. Imposing ideology onto nature requires ignoring a lot of evidence.

The burden of proof should be on those who advocate feeding an animal something far different to its evolved diet. Still, there is lots of evidence that cats do poorly the more their diet gets away from not just animal foods but raw animal foods... I cited a well known study that's quite old above, but I'm absolutely sure you can find more evidence on this, if you care to.

Yes I read that above. Cats require a diet consisting almost entirely of animal protein and their livers cannot process the toxins in plant foods. This is still abusive behavior. Sorry if it feels bad to realize you have supported this, but you should stop... the science is clear.

"Having a vegetarian cat," also known as animal abuse.

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/nutrition-greats/...

donquichotte, I figured your position was more nuanced than the original comment let on... sorry for being abrupt.

As long as we can define capitalism as the freedom to buy and sell legal goods and one services on whatever prices/terms one wishes, my own conclusion has been the when companies are in a position to exploit workers it's typically because of a lack of free enterprise and not the other way around. I can see why people who think the cause is free enterprise would want to further regulate.

But inevitably when you find powerful exploitative corporations you can dig a little and find that it's usually because they are not operating on a level playing field... the huge exploitative entity is only possible because someone's economic freedom is being restricted somewhere. Typically by writing regulation in their favor -- both in industry-specific ways and with corporate law in general.

The thing to do is to strip away their unfair advantages, not to allow the beasts to exist and "regulate". Because small businesses have a hard time coping with the cost of even well-intended regulation you can end up having the opposite effect. And the regulators end up becoming complicit.

Okay, babygoat, you're not familiar with Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick, which is the allusion here. Granted it's an obscure one... but one many who have been introduced to this question (wage and price controls) academically would be familiar.

Nozick made a classic argument about how naive concepts of social justice are incompatible with a system in which everyday economic transactions made by free will can be honored. He used the wealth of Wilt Chamberlain as an example (although his argument was actually concerned with wage ceilings, the same thinking applies to wage floors).

You can insert the words "for example" before "basketball player," or fill in another profession if you need this to be an argument. I wasn't really trying to make one, because the burden of argument isn't on me.

When someone claims that capitalism requires coercion in order to pay high salaries, the burden is on them to explain why so many high salaries exist, sans coercion, under capitalism. Or why wages have generally been higher in capitalist countries.

Another problem with wage floors (coercing higher wages) is that -- to the extent they are effective -- they inevitably create surpluses. For example, requiring every fast food worker to be paid $30 an hour would create a shortage of fast food (by the economic definition). Requiring every programmer to be paid $200,000 would create a shortage of programming.

Right, that's why no one ever gets a raise without coercion. Companies would never compete to establish the price of labor without coercion. Similarly, this is why no basketball players make more than $100,000... after all, why would any company ever pay someone more than unless they were being forced?

For things that can reasonably be done with RDBMS, probably not... see "Do we need specialized graph databases? Benchmarking real-time social networking applications" (PDF link https://event.cwi.nl/grades/2017/12-Apaci.pdf)

But it seems likely that for queries that differentiate graph databases, such as finding long, variable-length paths, that there are cases where they can excel.