alter_eco123

> How do you explain the GDPR then?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Is it not obvious that politicians don't want to bust their biggest (potential) campaign contributors for GDPR violations?

Isn't it obvious that we don't have any more privacy now than before GDPR, because governments are still spying the shit out of us all?

In light of that, is it not obvious that GDPR's real goal is something other than improving our privacy?

Do you genuinely think governments (or EU bureaucrats) actually care about us or our privacy? If not, why would you think GDPR was devised for our benefit?

And gosh, it sure makes it more difficult for small businesses to stay viable, and wouldn't it be nice for big corporations to have fewer potential competitors/disruptors around?

Pestering GooAmaBookSoft through GDPR complaints is fine, but won't actually accomplish anything in terms of privacy improvements - they're all in bed with governments anyway.

The only real solution is to stop letting these companies invade your privacy, by ceasing to use their services.

That doesn't mean "THIS.. IS.. STALLMAN!", but it will be less convenient than letting them continue.

Good question!

I'm guessing typical implementations would involve a lot of caching.

It would be nice to hear about people's experiences though.

> I’m saying that without the Fed and the federal government acting to rationally steer markets the markets will go off a cliff and not come back.

So how did markets exist at all when the Fed was created? By your logic, they would have "gone off a cliff and never come back" long before that.

> When the government stimulates the already hot market with lax taxes and high spending it’s like pouring liquid oxygen onto a flame

Even after all the stimulus so far? No diminishing returns, ever?

Do you think ruling over subjects is done to benefit the subjects?

Do you think 2% is a good rate for you to be losing your savings' purchasing power? How fast would you like gangrene to spread through your body?

> "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. - Luke 16:10

Water that is wet is also dry, and water that is dry is also wet!

>> no way to put a number on how much you want something

> Counter-example: I do it all the time.

No you don't. I mean, sure you can pull numbers out of your ass and pretend to calculate something based on them.

Or you can even explicitly set out to calculate garbage results with garbage inputs, if you insist.

But you're not putting accurate numbers on how much anyone wants anything, because it's all subjective.

> All government choices are forceful interventions, whether a choice to act or not act.

Indeed. That's how ruling over subjects works. I can't parse the latter part though, but whatever.

Yes, benchmarks can give a misleading impression of a database's performance.

So what? Somehow PostgreSQL is doing fine despite that.

Which is worse publicity for Cognitect: people publishing bad benchmarks or Cognitect forbidding benchmarks Oracle style?

> Datomic is designed for data sets larger than memory

Of course. But you didn't answer my question.

Let's say someone has an application with 100GB of data in Datomic.

What kind of memory usage should he expect for the "peer" process?

> Not long ago even European countries had double borders

Our current situation might be marginally better than "double borders", but you're probably aware we're headed in a police statey direction all over the world.

You know, in practice, even your passport has always been a "permission to leave".

It's also a "permission to enter" some other country. But without it, you won't be flying anywhere.

Then you've got visas, which are "permissions to exist" in a certain geographical area (within a certain time-frame).

We've all had a default assumption that we can get a new passport any time, but it's actually never been guaranteed.

> Pay should represent the value you offer to the company, period.

Sure, but value works both ways.

"Your salary should represent the value working remotely offers to you"

If it's reasonable for you to think that way, why wouldn't it be reasonable for companies too?