For most uses, SQL databases are easy to use and general enough to allow practically unlimited growth, "stringy queries" usually need less "wrangling" than accessing bare files correctly, and designing and implementing file formats is a luxury (usually done because optimizing for file size and compression is traditional).
On the cons, you have sql injections, which can kill your company's reputation.
It only became less common by shifting the issue to the supply chain, now you need orms and yet another wrangling library. So I'm not convinced the security issue is "fixed", let alone the code complexity introduced by these things just to effectively do one of the most fundamental operations in computing, writing() to disk
You don't need an orm or some wrangling library to avoid sql injections. You just have to use parameterized queries. That's a bit cumbersome when using the bare C SQLite API, but in Python it's very easy.
The article is strangely supportive of Adobe, far beyond a normal person's sense of ridicule.
Software development is about revenue, but specifically Adobe's revenue:
> Automated or semi-automated cloning to steal revenue away from developers
Pay us, don't innovate:
> They’re spending minimum $2K to vibe code a Photoshop competitor when Affinity Photo is free and Photoshop costs $200 a year. Not very smart economics.
> Commercial apps innovate and lead. Open source apps like Blender follow the lead. Innovation costs a lot of money.
> Instead of hurling hate speech and bile at thousands of software engineers who lead innovation at large companies (Adobe, Autodesk, Maxxon, Celsys, and others), show them some gratitude for their efforts. They are the engineers who innovate and everyone else follows. Just because they work at a big company doesn't mean they are committing human rights abuses. We have a generation brainwashed by envy and hate instead of urging everyone to be greater and bigger.
Why do people hate Adobe more than other companies? What's the difference? Only sensitive insiders would pretend to ignore decades of enshittification.
> Clip Paint Studio, Maya, 3ds Max and Cinema 4D, btw, are all subscription applications. But because those apps aren’t in demand by pirates Autodesk has not experienced the hate and bullying campaigns that Adobe has received.
People noticed the "underage children", but defending Adobe customer support is even more ridiculous:
> And when it comes to customer support things become even sadder looking. One or two guys in a Discord chatroom cannot support a global user base, especially when those two guys are hunting for underage children to speak to on Discord (yes, I have seen what vibe coders do).
And possibly too slow to be safe from space weapons from escort satellites protecting balloons, or too slow and clumsy for combat missions of any kind.
Lunar Landers aren't particularly large. Both the SLS and Falcon Heavy support comparable payload sizes (dimensions). As for mass, the Falcon Heavy supports 64 tons to orbit. They haven't advertised a mass to the Moon, but they have advertised 17 tons to Mars, and it requires a bit more juice than the Moon to get to.
The Lunar Module had a fueled mass of 16 tons. So the Falcon Heavy would be perfectly suitable. And that's without anything fancy like in-orbit refueling, modular designs, etc.
Persistent problems with increased hash lengths seem unlikely: if bad git clients have erroneous truncations or buffer overflows, they can either fix them instantly, problem solved (they have had many years to implement and test SHA-256), or fail to fix them and be written off as obsolete and incompatible: problem equally solved.
In the middle of vacuous complaints about slightly late tools and debatable threat models, I see one legitimate-looking concern in this article: submodules require either hashing algorithm and therefore force inconvenient upgrades.
Is it true? Where exactly the parent repository references hashes from the submodule repositories, and how could these links be generalized for compatibility?
What do the engines have to do with plasma around the hull, or rather its leading edges, caused by supersonic speed, which never ever even enter them?
And if you're thinking of the exhaust, why would that matter at all for signals reception and transmission, with the exception of a small cone from right behind?
