Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48093844

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

The national elections in NLD have a single ballot in the whole country, with 10+ parties who each get a column of their candidates on the ballot, and with one box for each of the candidates. In these elections for the 150 seats of parliament, often there are 200+ candidates listed total. As a result, the ballot sheets need to be quite large and so are quite far into the 'unwieldy' part of the handling spectrum.

This size issue also complicates verification and counting, because you have to verify that of all checkboxes, exactly one is filled in, and sorting/counting needs to do this for practically every ballot.

There has been some experimenting with changing the ballot to a 'party' and 'list number' ballot, where you fill in the party of your chosen candidate together with their number on the party list, but AFAIK that has not (yet?) been approved for wider use.

For details, check the ruling here (Dutch): https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2...

But management depends on your manager; at scale it becomes likely there are bad apples in every management tree. Incentives may not align with what you want or need, with work From Home policies getting shrunk. Even money sometimes is a point of contention.

Probably not 7nm small, but not the full 50 nm either.

The Dutch subsidiary has been acquitted, as it only managed advertisement income, not the app design.

Meta Platforms Inc. has been acquitted, as it itself doesn't directly provide apps or services in Europe (nor the Netherlands) - legally that's managed by Meta Platforms Ireland and so not Inc.'s responsibility.

Meta Platforms Ireland has been ordered to implement these changes, enforced by the up to 5 million euro fine (see pages 20 and 21 in the verdict)

The judgement requires Meta to change their platforms within 2 weeks so that the user's choice is persistent. If not implemented in 2 weeks, there is a daily penalty of €100'000, up to a maximum of €5 million.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45448326

Points: 327

# Comments: 239

Minor versions of PostgreSQL have constraints that major versions don't have; in that minor versions in principle don't see new features added. This allows minor versions of the same major release to run against the same data directory without modifications.

However.

Major versions add those new features, at the cost of changes to internals that show up in things like catalog layout. This causes changes in how on-disk data is interpreted, and thus this is incompatible, and unlike minor releases this requires specialized upgrade handling.

Personally, I'm very happy to see parallel builds for GIN indexes get released - (re)index time for those indexes is always a pain. I'm looking forward to further improvements on that front, as there are still some relatively low-hanging fruits that could improve build times even more.

I think that "under review" claim is doing some very heavy lifting, especially when it relates to their changes to index tuple lifecycle management. The patches that have been submitted are unlikely to get committed in full anytime soon, even after substantial changes to the patches' designs.

PostgreSQL just has not been designed for what OrioleDB is doing, and forcing OrioleDB's designs into PostgreSQL upstream would a lot of (very) sharp edges that the community can't properly test without at least a baseline implementation - which critically hasn't been submitted to upstream. Examples of these sharp edges are varsized TIDs, MVCC-owning indexes, and table AM signalled index inserts.

There are certainly ideas in OrioleDB's designs that PostgreSQL can benefit from (retail index tuple deletion! self-clustering tables!), but these will need careful consideration in how this can be brought into the project without duplicating implementations at nearly every level. A wholesale graft of a downstream fork and then hoping it'll work out well enough is just not how the PostgreSQL project works.

Alternatively, you can break it down into ethanol, which has been used as liquid rocket fuel since at least the first half of the '40s.

See e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1698936, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1699756

You could use 'static, or you can move (partial) ownership of an object into itself with Rc/Arc and locking, causing the underlying counter to never return to 0. It's still very possible to accidentally hold on to a forest.