I just hate managing subscriptions.

If you gave me the option to require manual subscription renewal, rather than auto-renewal, I would 100% buy this right now. Basically allow me to purchase for 1 year then click a button to confirm that I'm still getting value out of the product. If I don't click that button then you should assume I'm no longer interested and cancel my subscription.

(I don't like using my mac but sometimes I have to use it for work, and I wish I had this.)

- some generic context, containing a bunch of em dashes of course, with a vague background that isn't tied to a specific incident

- a claim like "most ___ I've talked to about this" within the first few sentences.

- ends with a series of questions as though they're soliciting more input

I feel like these all must be coming from a single person who's trying to automate market research and sell the data or something

But these days, I just tell codex to install things for me. I basically use it as a universal package manager. It's more reliable honestly than trying to keep up to date with "what's the current recommended way to install this package?"

I also have it keep a list of packages I have installed, which is synced to GitHub every time the list changes.

This sounds solvable with clickhouse views?

> automatic joins

Is this also not solvable with views? Also, clickhouse heavily discourages joins so I wonder how often this winds up being beneficial? For us, we only ever join against tenant metadata (i.e. resolving ID to name)

> query optimization

This sounds potentially interesting - clickhouse's query optimizer is not great IME, but it's definitely getting better

Which outcome is ideal? Which one is morally correct?

(A) the retailer refunds every customer, loses all of their profits and probably goes bankrupt

(B) the retailer is forced to go into massive debt in order to replace everyone's RAM, and may not recover from the debt, and may face legal consequences if they can't replace the RAM

(C) in the first place, the retailer should have been required to have a backup RAM stick for everyone that purchases the RAM, so that they are able to issue replacements if necessary, plus extra in case the replacements themselves are faulty. As a result, RAM prices before this incident were well over 2X the real manufacturing cost, in order to cover this "backup" cost (manufacturing, storage, etc.)

(D) something else?

(This is a much more extreme version of what actually happened, but maybe instructive to think about)