Just the raw amount of data is not enough metrics to judge whether postgres is "enough".
They seem to value horizontal scalability e.g. in terms of write throughput, which is easier to handle with something like their solution compared to postgres.
This is also my experience.
It's always that projects grow large in terms of people working on them and that is when you want to create independence between teams by reducing the amount of cooperation needed on a very defined boundary/interface between them.
Usually you start small and grow bigger, so there is only rare exceptions where it makes sense to merge microservices back into a monolith, except maybe for cases where going for a microservice architecture was a bad decision taken without actually having the above mentioned problem.
As can be seen from the comments, the person concerned probably felt that he was being treated disproportionately.
Regardless of the fact that it would of course be better for the police if they were better able to recognize fake reports, I found the situation to be handled rather well.
This can be an example of how the average police interaction can go in a country where not every second citizen is expected to carry weapons or pose other threats.
Being in handcuffs for a bunch of seconds in this unclear situation is not the fault of the police, but the swatter.
He was greeted at the door by 10 police officers with their weapons drawn who immediately ordered his hands out of his pockets and handcuffed him. That's about how a swatting episode in the US usually goes. I see no evidence in the dev's description that would suggest that this incident was less likely to lead to a death than the typical police response in the US.
I agree that just from the picture side, this looks very similar.
However, in Germany, police is taught in a very different way than US:
They are only allowed to use firearms as a last resort, and only to use it after non-lethal measures like the taser have been used beforehand.
They are also asked to only use it to wound, not to kill suspects.
In contrast, US police is e.g. trained to shoot at the center of mass as they argue that anything else would be more difficult under stressful circumstances.
I see the situation itself as the problem (that fake reports can lead to it), but realistically, there is probably no way to avoid them compeletely, so just looking at the way how such interactions are going on from there on can make the difference as well.
Just to be clear what we're talking about: I can find evidence of exactly three swatting deaths ever, with one being a heart attack, not gunfire. So two cases of police opening fire due to a prank call in the entire US in the entire history of swatting.
Those cases are unacceptable, but how confident are you that it's not that Germany hasn't had one yet by dint of much smaller population sizes and therefore fewer police calls, rather than different police training? Again: these ten police officers had their weapons drawn.
It could be that there is no such case of someone being swatted and killed in Germany because of smaller population, or because of differences in police training.
In the end, the pathway to police not having to draw their weapons is the path where unexpected threats are minimal on the side of the average citizen.
Police is also a victim in case of swatting. Imho no need to be overly emotional about preventive actions focused on the weapons only if they are not possible easily, or if small number of problematic cases suggests lesser priority. I see different things to discuss first: Police blaming swatted victims. Police not allowing submission of warnings by victims beforehand.
Not necessarily, as there are other exceptions to this rule. A person can also be "Beiwerk" [1] (= accessory/props) which in the context of personality rights means that you are not the main focus point of the picture.
The commitment to a 2 year grace period for deprecated API versions would only start at the release date of the succeeding API version, right? Many consumers are maybe only interested in the time they have to switch, not the general lifetime of a specific version.
In Europe, "Computer Science" is translated with a word that is a mix of "information" and "mathematics". University course names are:
> [...] informatique (French), Informatik (German), informatica (Italian, Dutch), informática (Spanish, Portuguese), informatika (Slavic languages and Hungarian) or pliroforiki (πληροφορική, which means informatics) in Greek. Similar words have also been adopted in the UK (as in the School of Informatics of the University of Edinburgh). In the U.S., however, informatics is linked with applied computing, or computing in the context of another domain. [1]
That is true but in french at least "informatique" means both "computer science" (for example you can study "informatique" at university) and "anything related to computers". "What's your line of work?": a DBA, sysadmin, software developer, computer scientist, etc. may all answer simply "informatique". A series of books for beginners about Excel, Word, Internet, etc. may be called "Collection informatique".
Or if, say, you have issues delivering something on time to a client (no matter the domain), you can always invoke a "bug informatique".
So "informatique" means and is used, at least in french, much, much, much more than just "computer science".
In a way it's even worse than in english: at least "science" is added to "computer" in english and it's kinda self-explanatory. In french everything is in the same basket: from someone doing its Ph.D. to someone having a lesson to learn how to use the mouse... It's all "informatique".
In Germany, anything computer-related is subsumed under "Informatik".
- Students learning to use MS Office in school? Informatik.
- People fixing printers and replacing your harddrive? Informatik.
- System administrators managing a datacenter? Informatik.
- Data scientist applying deep learning techiques? Informatik.
- University professor trying to prove P==NP? Informatik.
Honestly, I envy the Americans for their destinction between "computer science" (CS) and "information technology" (IT). Even if computer science is not really about computers.
It depends on the context. A university degree in Informatik will obviously not be about using MS Office. But 7th grade Informatik is. 10th grade Informatik introduced programming at my school.
A trained job “Fachinformatiker für Systemadministration” will be about sysadmin work.
To 90% of the population, it's not "obvious" or we would not need T-Shirts labeled "I will not fix your computer for you".
Even a common programmer does not use any actual "computer science" 99% of the time and your typical sysadmin type probably never knew any. So it's simply wrong and confusing to use the same word for it.
In Finnish it's "tietojenkäsittelytiede" which consists of:
* "tieto": knowledge but also sometimes information or even data. Computer is "tietokone", knowledge machine (IMO "tieto" one of the worst words in Finnish due to the too broad scope which is why we also say "informaatio" and "data" these days)
> In Europe, "Computer Science" is translated with a word that is a mix of "information" and "mathematics".
I don't think the "ics" in Informatics comes from "mathematics". It is more general: Aesthetics, Economics, Genetics, Linguistics, Physics, Statistics. It just means "the study of".
Wait a moment, the casual etimology of that word suggests (at least in spanish) a profession or a science, not "the sum of math and information" per se.
That same suffix, -atica, is also applied in "the mathematic" as the person (-atic) and "The Mathematics" as the science (el Matemático, las Matemáticas).
So lets say that you are a guy from two centuries ago. Someone tells you "this guy has studied informatics, he is the Informatic of the town". That would sound as if he "is versed in the study of information" rather than Computing.
Also, in Spain, instead of "the Computer" (the thing that computes, calculates), they call it "the Order-ator" (Ordenador, the thing that brings order).
Hmm, where are you from? I'm from norther Spain and those nouns don't suggest anything related to science for me. "El matemático" may be, but just because we associate it with a theoretical field, "Informático" is a practitioner of "Informática", as "Químico" is from "Química".
This wikipedia article is not very accurate. In Hungary "informatika" is usually used only for primary/secondary school subjects covering every-day IT tasks like document editing, typing, or sending email. The most commonly used names for CS courses are "számításelmélet" or "számítástudomány" which translate as "theory of computing" and "science of computing".
I would add that what is basically Computer Science curriculum is called “Programtervező Informatika” (roughly software engineering/modeling informatics~=compsci) while what is generally the same as Computer Science Engineering is called “Mérnökinformatika” (roughly engineering informatics).
But you are right that as a job description, “informatikus” is a more basic position than “programozó”=developer/software engineer, etc.
The original name of the university course in Italy was Scienze dell'Informazione, Information Sciences. I remember that my relatives were surprised and they were asking me if I was really about to study journalism (news "informano" / inform people in Italian.) I had to explain that it was about computers. Informatics, not journalism.
It used to be called Data Processing. I guess that confused people? Information Services was used for people who didn't know what data was. Before the GUI it was a lot harder.
In Japanese, "computer science" is directly translated as 計算機科学, which basically means "calculator science" - but the phrase is unusual, very rarely used.
Instead, more commonly seen are 情報工学 ("information engineering") or 情報科学 ("information science") - which is equivalent in meaning to "informatics".
There are at least four more-or-less equivalent Korean terms in common use. "컴퓨터 과학" (lit. computer science) and "컴퓨터 공학" (lit. computer engineering) is the most popular and frequently seen in universities. "전산학" (lit. [electronic] computing science) is less common but preferred by several prominent universities [1]. "정보과학" (lit. information science) is substantially unpopular than both but can be seen for example in several academic institutes like 한국정보과학회 (the Korean Institute of Information Scientists and Engineers).
[1] There was even a significant attempt in 2000 to change the name of KAIST [2] CS department from "전산학" to "컴퓨터 과학" or similar. The attempt was unsuccessful and to this day its name remains "전산학(부)". Prof. Kwanggeun Yi has written a public letter [3] against the change.
These words overlap with IT too much. I’m suspicious that they refer to Computer Science specifically, but please prove me wrong.
I always find it slightly irritating that my learned peers from the Information Technology team — they who rigorously study the practice of managing Jira installations, Windows 10 upgrades, finite Active Directory domains, and the long term effects of CISCO certifications — have land grabbed the English word Information.
In my country that would be related to "automatismos". Thus, industrial automatization, control engineering, automatic theorem demonstrations and so on.
Self regulated machines.
Came here to make much the same comment. I cannot tell you how many videos of his I have watched regarding complex mathematical subjects which are well beyond me, yet still he allowed me to walk away with a reasonable understanding. His clear explanations coupled with impressive visualizations make for a powerful learning experience.
Particularly at a time when so much education is online, Sanderson is the gold standard for teaching IMHO.
In times where one of the biggest messaging application providers is able to leak hundreds of millions of personal records, I'd rather don't want governments to make laws to expand that risk to all of my private conversations as well.
