> 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.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46135414

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46052960

Points: 27

# Comments: 8

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

> 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.

> Court documents can be seen here: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s... You can find David W. Plummer listed in the court complaint.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

[1](https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/meta-consent-or-pay-consum...)