The most interesting thing for me in this article was the mention of `MERGE` almost in passing at the end.
> I'm not a big fan of using the constraint names in SQL, so to overcome both limitations I'd use MERGE instead:
```
db=# MERGE INTO urls t
USING (VALUES (1000004, 'https://hakibenita.com')) AS s(id, url)
ON t.url = s.url
WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET id = s.id
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (id, url) VALUES (s.id, s.url);
MERGE 1
```
I use `insert ... on conflict do update ...` all the time to handle upserts, but it seems like merge may be more powerful and able to work in more scenarios. I hadn't heard of it before.
Seems like the regulation works well when it is applied. Why is there a need for a simpler solution? Why try to replace it with a 'simpler' tax with none of the human consideration about how the m/a could lead to less competition.
Like if this regulation was replaced in favor of this tax, a big company merging with another big company would be considered fine when obviously big company mergers can be just as concerning as larger companies buying smaller ones
I think what you’re seeing is a confusion coming from ground news own terms. They call something a “left wing blind spot” when it’s a story that does not appear in left-wing sources, meaning that it only appears in right wing sources. The blog copies that terminology here, but it can lead to some confusion.
> Starting in the first week of 2024, the FreeBSD boot process suddenly got about 3x slower. I started bisecting commits, and tracked it down to... a commit which increased the root disk size from 5 GB to 6 GB. Why? Well, I reached out to some of my friends at Amazon, and it turned out that the answer was somewhere between "magic" and "you really don't want to know"; but the important part for me was that increasing the root disk size to 8 GB restored performance to earlier levels.
> Now, as to the tidbit. Dave Plummer ran a scam company that was sued by Washington State in 2006, "SoftwareOnline.com, Inc. ". He actually left Microsoft specifically to run this company.
> The short of it is that it was an online software scam company that tricked people into downloading fake Anti-virus and security software using online ads, and then the software delivered additional adware and nagware onto users machines.
The credit freeze portion is permanently free for all 3 sites. I use it myself.
At the same time, these companies all offer other paid ‘monitoring services’ that they use heaps of dark patterns to push new users into paying for and confuse users to prevent people from finding the free ‘just security freeze’ service
Obviously within the context of this discussion, we are talking about states (in this case the EU) making laws.
As to whether or not, they have a right to make laws? I think that’s outside of the scope of this discussion because they clearly already made the law and meta isn’t challenging their right to do so.
So from the articles I can find about the complaints filed against Meta [1] I can't find any explanation of what would be an acceptable price for non-consent besides free.
I mean like it's their right as a government to say 'you can't charge for consent. either charge everyone or no-one', but I wonder how it'll all pan out.
I don't see a lot of discussion of the Meta "pay or consent" investigation. Why wouldn't giving users the option to pay for tracking-free, ad-free service meet the requirement? Is the concern that the $10/month price too high? Would this kind of model be acceptable at a more reasonable price point?
Hmm still clickbaity because you don't know how it happens. Better title:
"This is the story of the most unbelievable demo I've been given in world of open source. You can't make this stuff up.
It was 2005, and I felt like I was in the eye of a hurricane. I was an independent performance consultant and Sun Microsystems had just released DTrace, a tool that could instrument all software. This gave performance analysts like myself X-ray vision. While I was busy writing and publishing advanced performance tools using DTrace (my open source DTraceToolkit and other DTrace tools, aka scripts), I noticed something odd: I was producing more DTrace tools than were coming out of Sun itself. Perhaps there was some internal project that was consuming all their DTrace expertise?
DTraceToolkit v0.96 tools (2006)
As I wasn't a Sun Microsystems employee I wasn't privy to Sun's internal projects. However, I was doing training and consulting for Sun, helping their customers with system administration and performance. Sun sometimes invited me to their own customer meetings and other events I might be interested in, as a local expert. I was living in Sydney, Australia.
This time I was told that there was a Very Important Person visiting from the US whom I'd want to meet. I didn't recognize the name, but was told that he was a DTrace expert and developer at Sun, and was on a world tour demonstrating Sun's new DTrace-based product. Ah-hah – this must be the internal project!
But this would be no ordinary project. I'd seen some amazing technologies from Sun, but I'd never seen a developer on a world tour. This was going to be big, and would likely blow away my earlier DTrace work.
The VIP was returning to Sydney for a few days before going to the next Australian city, so we agreed to meet at the Sun Sydney office.
> I'm not a big fan of using the constraint names in SQL, so to overcome both limitations I'd use MERGE instead:
``` db=# MERGE INTO urls t USING (VALUES (1000004, 'https://hakibenita.com')) AS s(id, url) ON t.url = s.url WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET id = s.id WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (id, url) VALUES (s.id, s.url); MERGE 1 ```
I use `insert ... on conflict do update ...` all the time to handle upserts, but it seems like merge may be more powerful and able to work in more scenarios. I hadn't heard of it before.