(Part 3) Top products from r/KotakuInAction

> What they give you is pretty limited though... not nullable, foreign key references, uniqueness... What would be really more valuable is along the lines of the example I gave end of last comment, or restricting dates to be on a certain day of the week, or numbers to a certain range, etc etc.

Errr, there's the very generic CHECK constraint that lets you use Boolean expressions and I believe support everything you mention above out of the box (except for MySQL of course). Here's the PostgreSQL reference page on them, and here's an example of a constraint I used in my last project to make sure all the times stored in the database were in the same time zone:

ALTER TABLE time_slots
ADD CONSTRAINT time_slots_check_slot_time
CHECK (EXTRACT (TIMEZONE FROM slot_time) = '0')

You can do a lot more, as well as call stored procedures for calculations that are not built in. Of course, you have to write those procedures first :-)

> You mentioned something you did 94-96... which was right when I started high school. Think there is actually a bit of a generational gap on this LOL.

Yes, I do believe there is :-) I started programming in my junior year in high school, punched card FORTRAN "IV" on an IBM 1130 in 1978. Scare quotes because that dialect didn't have logical IF statements, each IF would GOTO another line, based on the result being negative, 0, or positive.... Trust me, except for the educational value, the aesthetics of handling card decks and feeding them into the card hopper etc., you didn't miss much. Sent me straight to the library to read up on software engineering.

> I don't really have an issue with using the constraints provided by an RDBMS... I just think they are woefully insufficient and that that logic should exist primarily in the main application code.

Here we should just agree to disagree, this is a fundamental and highly contested architectural issue, neither of us is "wrong", we each think a different choice is better.

> Another big part of that is I don't want an app too closely coupled to the choice of database, regardless of what it is.

That's not terribly hard to arrange, you've just got to have the self-discipline to use generic SQL, data types (or easily interchangeable ones, you've got all sorts of levels of isolation available), etc. I.e. I generally use this reference first, before getting database specific, and make note of the database specific features I use. Of course, I really try to limit the choices to solid MVCC ones, i.e. Oracle and PostgreSQL.

> (Although the comeback to that is of course SQLite).

Of course, although I've worked on a system that used the Sleepycat version of the Berkeley DB key/value database but didn't do much with that part of it, and as I mentioned before in less detail, incorporated a SQLite like single client object database called directly from C++ in a greenfield project I was the architect and primary developer of. I'm by no means dogmatic about this, I just have my preferences for complicated interrelated data.

Binary assets will depend on the database, I suppose, they've generally got a blob data type, but I've never used a RDBMS with blobs of any great size (4K or less if I remember correctly). Have never done geocoordinate data, did an interview for a job doing that, I know that's a specialty and would likely use a purpose built database for it, or I've heard PostgreSQL has an ... addon? that's supposed to be hot.

> But arguably the Mongo document model is better since read/write speed is much more paramount over making sure each and every metrics record was written OK.

"metrics record"? Note that except for perhaps one data warehouse application where I suppose loss of a few rows could have been tolerated (but that wouldn't come up except in ETL failure), it was imperative that the data was treated with ACID care.

> I think we will be pushed to the second amendment suicide pact before system collapse in that instance, but otherwise, yeah that all makes sense.

Oh yeah I forgot about your guns (I'm a Brit, I don't even think our army has guns half the time due to austerity). So that's a complete game changer in terms of a total takeover. It's then likely that a communist left will rule over the coasts and cities, while the deep rural areas (especially the mountains) might be able to live free until the ''Peoples Justice Militia'' begin a campaign.

Also America is fuckin' HUGE, so the geography is a burden to the authoritarians, so much land and not enough money to buy CCTV and batons, hence why I suspect they focus on the coasts and cities. In the case of Germany, liberal people will simply have to flee while they can, but once it's too late to do that, you will have to do the song of dance of ''finding SocJus Jesus and renouncing your whiteness'' else you'll be on the radar. Delete the shit out of your entire internet history, but don't delete social media, SJWs see ambiguity as suspicion.

In the case of Right Wing Nationalism takeover. Also delete internet, stash all your cultural items somewhere (music, video games etc), and take up a profession that's useful as fuck but not powerful, so basically a tradesman, the patriots aren't going to target the honest workers building and fixing their stuff. The key with this system would just be being quiet and staying out the way, even if someone knew you were a raging homosexual transgender pagan, they won't act on it unless you 'disturb the peace' somehow, conservatives see calm as ideal, whereas leftists want revolution and need to feel that the collective conscious has shifted (as in they want your mind).

I seriously recommend reading 'ol Musso's book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Rise-Fall-Benito-Mussolini/dp/0306808641/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

people focus their fears on Hitlers ideas way too much, this guy was his inspiration, and what do you know? He was a journalist and self-styled ''intellectual'' socialist, who rejected Marx's egalitarianism and replaced it with the ubermensch.

By comparison the social justice goal is to tear down the White Man (God is Dead) and reshape reality according to the post-modern intersectional vision (their ubermensch). The men will be required to spend their days deconstructing the patriarchy while the women will be required to raise the next generation of mixed race gender fluid blobs.
allies: http://www.daily.swarthmore.edu/2016/03/29/male-peers-allies-womens-history-month/
mothers (or.. not): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkcveiCnN44 (original video removed)

As a disclaimer, I am mixed race and a sexual minority, I'm fully supportive if someone wants to openly express their individuality, the case I am making is against a culture forcing identities upon people. I know some people hide ''I hate queers'' under a veneer of liberty but that's not me.

My only question to the European socialists is, how the fuck are they going to reconcile Islam and SocJus? Probably by letting the religion rule over the poor while the elites live in walled off rainbow complexes in the suburbs I guess.

> One of the few subjects on which we all seem to agree is the need for justice. But our agreement is only seeming because we mean such differing things by the same word. Whatever moral principle each of us believes in, we call justice, so we are only talking in a circle when we say that we advocate justice, unless we specify just what conception of justice we have in mind. This is especially so today, when so many advocate what they call 'social justice' - often with great passion, but with no definition. All justice is inherently social. Can someone on a desert island be either just or unjust?

• Thomas Sowell
  "The Quest For Cosmic Justice"
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Cosmic-Justice-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0684864630
  

> Antarctic Press :D my 3rd most frequently purchased comics publisher after Slave Labor Graphics and Dark Horse! mainly just the odd issue of Fred Perry's Gold Digger but mainly their How to Draw Manga books.

Didn't realize they were the How to Draw Manga book guys. Have a ton of them.

I remember back in the day the guy behind "Listening to 11.975Mhz" had a page up on them. He uh... wasn't a fan. He suggested instead an actual book on Figure Drawing / Anatomy -- Jack Hamm's was specifically suggested and a book by Stan Lee on how old school, pre-diversity hire retards Marvel did comicing -- How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way.

Archives for the links in comments:

• By gossipninja (reddit.com): http://archive.is/LBpHC
  
• By codecow911 (quora.com): http://archive.is/v4sv6
  
• By allo_ver (extranewsfeed.com): http://archive.is/n5uAM
  
• By ElusivePolitics (twitter.com): http://archive.is/JTp4a
  
• By Selfweaver (pewtrusts.org): http://archive.is/r6Fxk
  
• By hga_another (amazon.com): http://archive.is/JWBsv
  
• By SomeReditor38641 (ncees.org): http://archive.is/G6Eo4
  
• By hga_another (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.is/AASkv
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.1, THE KEKISTANI PEOPLE MUST BE FREE! ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

Give this a read.

From the description:

>This is not a comforting book -- it is a book about disturbing issues that are urgently important today and enduringly critical for the future. It rejects both "merit" and historical redress as principles for guiding public policy. It shows how "peace" movements have led to war and to needless casualties in those wars. It argues that "equality" is neither right nor wrong, but meaningless.
The Quest for Cosmic Justice shows how confused conceptions of justice end up promoting injustice, how confused conceptions of equality end up promoting inequality, and how the tyranny of social visions prevents many people from confronting the actual consequences of their own beliefs and policies. Those consequences include the steady and dangerous erosion of the fundamental principles of freedom -- and the quiet repeal of the American revolution.

> even at the cost of denying the mother agency and bodily autonomy

We Westerners are apparently okay with locking children into prisons for 9 years (12 years, 9 out of 12 months) when they could pick up the same skills in less time with less "formal" schooling. We also work for many months to pay taxes before we make enough to take home. You'll need to come up with a better excuse.

This "lost autonomy" is only from the date when the woman becomes aware of her condition, the loss is pretty much limited to, "you'll be a bit fat for a while, then lose most of it all at once."

Most anti-abortionists would gladly make birth control free to all women in exchange for the elimination of abortion. But for some, abortion at 8 months is preferable to them wondering what happened to the child they gave away. Gotta preserve that autonomy somehow.

BTW: A (very funny) discussion of open adoption was given by Dan Savage of all people.

> a big drive

Not really. And the Germans just executed up many French black soldiers. https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521857996

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060245867/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_FA.HzbFCGWNXD

The Forsaken also deals with this for much of the book, and has a bunch of additional stuff that Razorfist might not be aware of/didn't cover.

except for you know, the one child policy, abortion debates, materity/paternity leave, tax breaks for dependents, hundreds of articles on declining birth rates across tons of countries, and the very foundation of evolutionary development. Sure there isnt as much to teach exactly but our very genetic foundation is to reproduce or to help offspring develop to the point they can reproduced.

Why dont you read The Selfish Gene
https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925

> The Right can't mean almost anything. It means one of primarily two things.

Which would be...?

Seriously, what are the characteristics of the Right in America, and how do Neo-Nazis share those characteristics?

Like I've said repeatedly, you seem to be engaged in an amazing act of mental gymnastics in order to avoid the reality that Neo-Nazis aren't particularly indicative of the American Right.

Seriously now, you've flat out admitted that historical Nazism does not fall on the American Right. In order to maintain this, now nearly totemic, belief that Neo-Nazis are on the Right, you're claiming... historical Nazis "never addressed American issues".

What? Are you really of the opinion that the National-Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) didn't have a tax policy? Didn't have an opinion on Gun Control, on social welfare spending, on speech limitations...

Jonah Goldberg used to tease leftists by asking "other then the War, bigotry and genocide, what don't you like about Fascism?" This was a tease because the actual policies that Nazis and Italian Fascists had were... a great deal like Bernie Sander's platform.

Let me put it another way: the blurb for The Nazi War on Cancer, they describe;
>Robert Proctor recently made the explosive discovery, however, that Nazi Germany was also decades ahead of other countries in promoting health reforms that we today regard as progressive and socially responsible.

Or as the author said in an interview with the New Scientist;
>“The Nazi campaign against tobacco and the whole-grain bread operation were as fascist as the yellow stars and the death camps,” says Proctor. “We need to make sense of that, however painful it might be.”

Putting aside the European definition of 'the Right', you haven't given a single, substantive reason to place Neo-Nazis on the political Right except for your dogmatic assertion that they must be on the Right.

>I just don't know how smart people can believe it. How can the academy embrace it. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny...

Read The Secret of Our Success. Essentially, even the very smartest among us (and the early hominids we descended from and who initially evolved these systems we still carry around with us) are idiots compared to large groups of people reality-testing their ideas over whole generations, thus we evolved to intuitively emulate other (successful) people's behaviour. So smart academics will simply observe what the most prestigious academics in their field thinks and then start thinking the same things those people think without realizing why they're doing it: When anyone disagrees, then, as long as it's possible to handwave away their arguments, the arguments will just be shouted down by the mob - which will simply intuit that the most prestigious people are correct, and the upstarts wrong, and so will not look any further into it but just go along with the mob in laughing at that obvious idiot. Why dig into the research data when all these prestigious people are saying it's wrong? They're prestigious, so (your heuristics tell you) they're probably right. You've got better things to do with your time!

So usually, only when those people at the top die or are somehow unambiguously discredited will people start seriously considering new ideas. Thus, the adage that science advances one funeral at a time.

Then just toss in the stuff that people like Jonathan Haidt write about, like the tribalism, or the religious-like moral code that seems to spontaneously emerge in the absence of a pre-existing one, or the enormous bias people are towards finding reasons to believe what they already feel like is true, etc., and maybe add a dash of cynical self-interest among people looking to appeal to the seeming powers-that-be in order to advance their own careers, and that probably explains most of it.

On a slightly more positive note, it is possible to get these - or, well, any - people to consider whether what they believe is wrong, but to do so you need to disconnect them from their intuitive or 'system 1' thinking and activate their deliberate or 'system 2' thinking, and doing that isn't always easy. Apparently, when it comes to morality, one way to do that is to expose them to the thing you want to ask them about, but then wait like 5 minutes after exposure before actually asking them about it. By then their initial moral reaction will have died down and they can more calmly and rationally examine the problem. Another way is to trigger an error in their intuitive system that it can't resolve, which will then activate their conscious system which you can actually have a conversation with. Doing that is easier said than done though, especially as triggering any specific error in the intuitive system only really works once before a resistance is developed to it - intelligent people especially are very good at coming up with reasons for why any given error is not actually an error at all and then conditioning their intuitive system not to respond to it again.

Of course, for cynics who know they're wrong but are just using the agenda as a vehicle to advance themselves, no argument is likely to work.

Anyway. That's probably mostly why even very intelligent people believe very stupid things.