Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34384424

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34382765

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

We observed that people migrated off as soon as the applications went into production or were serious, as the database<->api approach did not actually give them all the flexibility they wanted.

(This was 3 years ago, the players that stayed in that market or entered later, of course learned from that and adapted. So I hear they are making their users happy. As are we as an ORM.)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34231231

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

But doesn’t the “ What About the Details?” section acknowledge that you will many of the other metrics later anyway for different people, projects and problems? Isn’t the message then “You should know which metrics are relevant to you and only look at them?”

Then the "German" way of doing things is actually _the_ way of doing things, and the US just hase some additional stuff on top.

That also clarifies the twitter thread to me: This was about a _court_ ruling, not some copyright office deciding if something is copyrighted or not (which I assumed because I thought about the German way being special, and my misguided understanding of the US system being the international standard).

I also realize now that further down the twitter thread this is made more explicit. I should really have read more then the first 5 tweets. Sorry.

In Germany for example (this will ignore a lot of nuance!), there is no applying or denying of copyright. If you created something, you own the copyright. It is even in the German name: "Urheberrecht" literally translates to "right of the creator". It can not be sold. And then there is the second concept of "Verwertungsrecht" or "Nutzungsrecht", which defines who has the right to "utilize" something (often for monetary gain). That fundamentally also starts with the person that created something, but can be sold (either before or after the work is done, for example via a contract).

As far as I know the US copyright system is very different from that, where you have to register or apply, and put (c) on things to show you own the right to moetize (this is even more vague, that is just the impression I got in the last 20 years of being on the internet).

In Germany the big discussion then is around "Schöpfungshöhe" - "threshold of originality" in English maybe - that decides if something is even in this system or not.

Is the discussion in the tweet about that really? If the work deserves to be in the system or not? If so, for "right of creator" or "right to utilize"?

(I work at Prisma, could have mentioned that earlier)

We can have either parallel queries in a transaction where the order does not matter, or we can have them serialized - but then the next query will only be sent onto its journey after the previous query returned its data to the app.

What are the attack vectors here? And where would the attacker sit and try to achieve what exactly?

What would be the alternative? Only execute the queries in sequence, one by one?

But of course for the user of the driver it might be fine if that is 2 or more HTTP requests. I expect that is how PlanetScale does it in their transaction implementation, https://github.com/planetscale/database-js#transactions, and I know that is how Prisma Data Proxy handles it - the transaction is identified with an ID which is returned to the Client and then included in further requests for the same transaction.

It's valid tradeoff to make to prefer a persistent connection to keep the overhead for multiple queries in a transaction as low as possible - which seems what Neon has done here.