BeefWellington

One of the things that's come up in several trade deals Canada has negotiated is how protectionist we (as a country) are when it comes to dairy.

We have not experienced the massive increases in pricing on eggs. The supply management system effectively works to keep farms roughly below a certain size, and seems to have helped avoid large impacts on certain staple foods.

The usual rhetoric against this is that we should be getting cheaper prices by letting in foreign competition. This ignores that doing so would allow foreign subsidies to wipe out our local supply of critical foodstuffs, then making us dependent.

It's not an ideal system but it seems to have yielded some tangible results when things like bird flu are making their rounds.

After the utter bullshit pulled in California, better hope your state is willing to defend its water reservoirs or for some places clean tap water may be the least of their problems.

SELinux!

Half jokes aside, I'd love to be able to have a decent mobile style permissions experience on browser extensions and desktop apps.

We all use PCs and heck even phones that have thousands of times the system memory of the first PCs.

Making something work really efficiently on older hardware doesn't necessarily imply less demand. If those lessons can be taken and applied to newer generations of hardware, it would seem to make the newer hardware all the more valuable.

Is it actually clear this is an authority the president has? Basically usurping Congress' control of the purse?

> I want people to give me attribution for the parts of my project that are copyrightable.

A requirement not extended to the open source developers whose code you are using essentially a copyright and licensing laundering engine to get around.

"The best way to get a good answer is to post a confidently wrong one" at work here...

Good read on what someone in a specific field considers to have been achieved (rightly or wrongly). It does lead me to wonder how many of these old manuscripts and their translations are in the training set. That may limit its abilities against any random sample that isn't included.

Then again, maybe not; OCR is one of the most worked on problems, so the quality of parsing characters into text maybe shouldn't be as surprising.

Off topic: it's wild to me that in 2025 sites like substack don't apply `prefers-color-scheme` logic to all their blogs.

You misunderstand, the repo lists an MIT license which requires attribution. You want people to give you credit if they use this LLM-generated code.

LLMs which were trained on the works of thousands of other developers with similar licenses, who are offered no similar credit here.

It also claims copyright of the code as though you have authored it, but you're claiming here to have used LLMs to generate it. Seems like trying to have it both ways.

It's funny that this is MIT licensed, expecting credit for uncopyrightable work.

I've seen many devs extrapolate this thinking too far into sending only the most simple queries and doing all of the record filtering on the application end. This isn't what I think you're saying -- just piggybacking to try and explain further.

The key thing here is to understand that you want the minimal correct query for what you need, not to avoid "making the database work".

The given example is silly because there's additional parameters that must be either NULL or have a value before the query is sent to the DB. You shouldn't send queries like:

    SELECT \* FROM users
    WHERE id = 1234
        AND (NULL IS NULL OR username = NULL)
        AND (NULL IS NULL OR age > NULL)
        AND (NULL IS NULL OR age < NULL)

But you should absolutely send:

    SELECT \* FROM users
    WHERE id = 1234
        AND age > 18
        AND age < 35

I would expect the query plan for SQL server to essentially return records matching `id` first (which again should be a situation where uniqueness comes into play) and then performing the rest of the execution on the subset that matches, which is hopefully one.

I leave allowances for `id` to be a stand-in for some other identity column that may represent a foreign key to another table. In which case I'd still expect SQL server's query planner to execute as: initial set is those where said column matches the supplied number, then further applies the logic to that subset. In fact I'd love to see where that isn't the case against a transactional DB.

If your column named simply `id` isn't a unique index you've gone very wrong.

The rest of the query plan probably won't need much power.