I would imagine most large-scale data center construction projects will include electrical engineers to design the electrical subsystem. A rack's floor footprint is a few square feet. You can put several million dollars of hardware into that rack. A data center will have at least a few racks. It's a very reasonable investment to bring someone in to do electrical design.
I've had the experience of getting to sit beside several categories of people across my career and watch them attempt to do something which is causing issues or errors. The pattern I have seen the most is what I can only describe as speedrunning the error. People will try to do the thing they (think they) know how to do. When information or error comes available on the screen, they completely ignore it; if it is a popup, it is closed as quickly as possible and if it is shown somewhere on the screen that doesn't interrupt their flow, then it is completely ignored.
I have given instructions to repeat, but more slowly, and people will still click through errors without a chance to read. I have asked people to go step by step and pause after every step so we can look at what's going on, and they will treat "do thing and close resulting error" as a single step, pausing only after having closed the error.
The only explanation I have that I can understand is that closing errors and popups is a reflex for many people, such that they don't even register doing it. I don't know if this is true or if people would agree with it.
I've seen this with programmers at all levels of seniority. I've seen it with technically capable non-programmers. I've seen it with non-technical people just trying to use some piece of software.
The only thing that's ever been effective for me is to coach people to copy all text and take screenshots of literally everything that is happening on their screen (too many narrow screenshots that obscure useful context, so I ask for whole-screen screenshots only). Some people do well with this. Some never seem to put any effort into the communication.
One avenue, couched in specifics of US law, but I presume the ideas have analogs in Germany's legal system:
A battery occurs when a harmful physical contact occurs. Contact with a weapon is pretty much by definition battery.
The use of such a drug in the commission of rape or other violent crimes would then be a very easily proven case. If the substance is present in a victim's body, then battery has occured, basically by definition.
Given that rape and other violent crimes that are committed with the use of such drugs may not leave other physical signs on the body of the victim, then this may be the only physical evidence.
The examination for presence of such a drug in the bloodstream is also much less intrusive than for a typical rape kit exam.
There's nothing binary or black and white in such investigations, so this is an additional avenue to provide evidence to support the prosecution of these violent criminals.
There is a possibility that the accused has nothing to do with it, you still have to prove it wasn't some third party or the victim who procured and took the drug.
Let me clarify. I meant the following. Assume ghb is found and evidence of sex. The woman claims she didn't take it and didn't want to have sex. Wouldn't this be enough for a conviction?
if the jury believed the woman's claims, yes, it's enough for conviction. conviction rates are high not because it's easy to prove guilt, but because district attorneys don't bring case that are likely to be lost. the scenario you describe might not be considered strong enough to win, and resources are limited, so this hypothetical case might not get a hearing.
i'm not talking about a plea bargain, i'm talking about declining to prosecute, not filing charges after an arrest, or asking the court to dismiss the charges
i am sure that every victim allegation does not lead to a prosecution in Germany
I'd argue pipes are even more powerful with multi-core machines. You get parallelism for absolutely free. No thread pools to manage, no async, no channels, no new abstractions. Just the same pipe that works in the same way it did 50 years ago.
But because each step of the pipeline is a separate process, you get the N executables of the pipeline all able to run on separate cores.
I am not trying to say that every workload will benefit from this, or that such coarse parallelism is optimal for all use cases. But the fact that it is free with no changes to the pipe, the pipeline, or any of the executables is incredible.
Coming from a data engineering and business analytics background, the terms "structured" and "unstructured" seem to be swapped in meaning here.
I'd expect to talk about anything in a DB as "structured data". Flexible serialization formats such as JSON or XML are "semi-structured". And something from e.g., an office document is "unstructured".
This is not a complaint or criticism. I understand the article just fine. It's just interesting how different perspectives can affect what words mean (:
Kleppman[1] calls it schema-on-read (json, xml) and schema-on-write (typed columns in an RDB). I like it over structured/unstructured, it's a bit more specific.
> Coming from a data engineering and business analytics background, the terms "structured" and "unstructured" seem to be swapped in meaning here.
Mark Rosewater likes to write about his personal concept of "linear" Magic: the Gathering decks, which are decks in which the cards tend to pick up synergy bonuses from each other, so that having two of them together is considerably more powerful than you'd expect from the strength of those two cards individually.
This always bothers me because it is the opposite of the more normal use of "linear" relationships, in which everything contributes exactly as much to an aggregate as it's worth individually.
I think the SQL sense is more that "structured" means "it contains internal structure" (like a tree), whereas a table without JSON is free from additional structure apart from its own table structure.
Coming from an educational background of imperial units, I sometimes catch flak from ... most of the world about this.
I take joy in exuberantly pushing back on their insistence of clinging to such archaic time units as "minutes", "hours", and "days", telling them to come back when they embrace kiloseconds. It is telling that most of my friends accept this with equal joy and laughter (:
It probably doesn't hurt that I've also spent time drilling metric conversions so that I can code-switch pretty seamlessly among units. Neurotic tendencies can have payoffs.
Yet "whomever" is also the object of the preposition, "to".
Certainly, if we took the primary clause of the sentence and substite in any number of pronouns, you'd agree that the objective forms are correct:
The book belongs to whomever. Not "whoever".
The book belongs to her. Not "she".
The book belongs to us. Not "we".
I don't know the English grammatical rule for this situation, but it certainly seems reasonable to say that the dependent clause does not get to dictate the form of an independent clause.
"The book belongs to the person who purchased it last week". Not "whom".
I think it is reasonable to say that the object of the to is not "who(m)ever", but the entire clause "who(m)ever purchased it last week"; and that clause should follow normal subject/verb agreement.
Similarly:
* "I don't know who purchased the book last week", not "I don't know whom purchased the book last week."
* "This is the person who you said purchased the book last week", not "This is the person whom you said purchased the book last week."
I've done some digging, and Fowler, Partridge and Gowers all support my stance, so I'm fairly confident in it now.
Not irrelevant at all. The case of the relative pronoun is determined by its role in the relative clause, not by the role of the relative clause in the sentence as a whole.
See:
- H. W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage
Perhaps you'd like to share a slightly more specific reference?
After all, these books treat many topics. Without specific reference, one might uncharitably assume that you are attempting to simultaneously misdirect and appeal to authority.
The Fowler and Partridge works are both arranged alphabetically, and in each the relevant entry is headed “who and whom”.
In Gowers, it is chapter 9, “The Handling of Words”, section “Troubles with Pronouns”, subsection 15, “Who and whom”; in the edition I own (Pelican Books 1962, reprinted 1970), that can be found on page 206.
reply