I'm just curious - is duckdb too slow for people? This benchmark from clickhouse shows it being fairly slow compared to some options: https://jsonbench.com/
I’m surprised! I guess I’m being naive but I would imagine you could pass an image to an image model without synthid and have it reconstruct the image in a net new way without the markers. I guess I’m wrong? That’s cool if the watermarks are so deeply ingrained that they persist
I've been thinking about this question for a while. It's confusing at first blush because it's an append-only database and it has a WAL — and it feels like a WAL is already an append-only database, so what's even happening?
Looking back at the project now, I think the value comes from querying it, and especially from automatic aggregations.
This is a reasonable use case that can't immediately be resolved by just logging to a file. It creates an aggregation profile, so a sensor could log temperature every minute and the database will automatically average temperature by the hour. That's a straightforward and meaningful use case.
There's also some query support, but that may be closer to something you can sort of do if you just have a log file.
I think the aggregations are the most direct value proposition. OP/author: worth making this pitch "above the fold" in the README, imho.
Also, I've done a lot of analytics work, and a fun feature to add that I've built in the past is an approximate median. I might open a PR and remind myself how to build that. Cheers!
it's been frustrating how bad it is at UI. I'm starting to test out using their image2 for UI and then handing it to codex to build out the images into code and I'm impressed and relieved so far
Ok I see so they have six studies that they found to indicate effective treatment of anxiety with cannibanoids but their meta study only found six trials with 50 people so the significance / n count is not high enough. So the study is a null result ie they don’t have enough data not they’ve disproved it. In fact their data supports the hypothesis. Then the coverage on science daily misrepresented this. Here's citaiton 40: https://www.nature.com/articles/npp20116 "Cannabidiol Reduces the Anxiety Induced by Simulated Public Speaking in Treatment-Naïve Social Phobia Patients" Pretreatment with CBD significantly reduced anxiety, cognitive impairment and discomfort in their speech performance, and significantly decreased alert in their anticipatory speech. The placebo group presented higher anxiety, cognitive impairment, discomfort, and alert levels when compared with the control group as assessed with the VAMS.
I’m digging through the paper. It’s a meta analysis paper.. they have six studies they analyze on anxiety treatment and they (footnotes 40-46) have positive results in terms of cbd showing a significant effect on anxiety reduction. I’m not invested in figuring out exactly how this study came to represent what it claims but it seems like a joke
It's not clear that graph-bench in "Tested with the LDBC Social Network Benchmark via graph-bench" is a benchmark that you made. It seems more robust and reliable than "we built a db and a benchmark tool, and our benchmark tool says we're the best". Just a thing to be careful about. You should just state that it's your tool and you welcome feedback to help make it so that other projects being compared are compared in their best light. Something like that might help, I don't know though it's a hard problem.
B) opinionated skills that use GitHub tickets, merge gates and execution of ticket graphs