> There's no way SQL is more unreadable than polars. IMO it's the other way around.
I think on basic queries, SQL is really nice, but when stuff gets more complex, with a bunch of CTEs, let alone functions requiring loops, it becomes pretty obtuse.
I would say that it is easier to decompose polars (and all dataframe api) queries and to build them up from pieces than it is to do the same with sql. Any time I find myself writing more than five or so lines of sql, or especially building a sql string in parts with logic, I wish I had a dataframe api instead. But the reverse is also somewhat true, that simpler and explicit expressions are nicer with sql.
Disappointed to see how many of the comments here are fairly negative. Especially for a site that so values true open source.
While this isn't the ereader for me (I need a larger screen and buttons), I absolutely love the idea and passion behind this project. I will look into supporting, if finances allow, as its something I could easily gift to younger members of the family.
Searched for "sexual exploration". One of the results i got returned was from corinthians and read:
The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise also the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
I'm so glad this religion of peace sees consent as profoundly unimportant
You could make the case I've just been indoctrinated in this stuff (genuine believer) but I take that to be a profoundly progressive verse given the context Paul is writing. Notice the symmetry.
I do notice the symmetry. It is saying that each of them can use the others body as they like, without regard for the other. But that's fine, because they can do it right back.
A progressive system is not built off "I'll do what I want to you but I also will let you do it back". That conveniently ignores that there is still an entirely non-consenting party in this.
Your body belongs to you. Your partners body belongs to them. And religious institutions teaching the opposite of this is what has lead to decades of marital rape and entitlement. I call that very very far from a progressive system
Consider this: neither man nor women, when fully committed to each other as if they are one, and maybe even if they are not committed, can control the emotions and impulses inflicted upon them by the other.
It's ok to set aside misgivings about the whole thing and how the world has corrupted it all and just explore the possibility of depth and beauty and love. You don't have to chose the worst interpretation of things, even if others have.
Describing my interpretation of a passage that quite literally says "your body belongs to someone else" as a 'worst possible reading' would be comically hilarious if not for the rather sinister undertones.
Your interpretation of this passage is reading far more into things and doing far more justifying than mine is
> It is saying that each of them can use the others body as they like, without regard for the other
This is your own interpretation and it shows your bias. The bible (and I assume other religious texts) is easy to misinterpret due to bias. It's not written like a technical documentation where the tiniest details are specified; thus giving plenty opportunities to subject a text to arbitrary meaning.
This was a problem even in biblical times. 2 Peter 3:16
> as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
The solution is study. Not superficially reading and guesstimating, but to study the text itself, the surrounding verses, the context. Who wrote it? Who's the audience? What, more broadly, are they trying to say? Crosschecking with other verses in bible. Things like that (See Proverbs 2:1-5, Psalm 1:2, Joshua 1:8, Psalm 119:97, 1. Timothy 4:15)
Coming back to the text in question (1. Corinthians 7:4). The surrounding verses provide context on what this is about:
> To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
> Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband.
> Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for an appointed time [...].
Put simply: "marry and enjoy sex." That's basically what the apostle Paul is trying to say here. But of course, that alone doesn't debunk your interpretation.
Paul also wrote Ephesians 5:28-33
> In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself, for no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cherishes it [...] Each one of you must love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband.
Also vers 25:
> Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it.
There are further verses, but this comment is getting too long.
Your comment is just another flavour of various fallacies christrians trot out i.e., whats stopping you raping and murdering without the bibles moral framework
And your also trying to twist my words in the opposite direction. I'm here claiming that someone's body belongs to only them. And your response is to say, if its only yours, why don't you go cheat??? Come on, this is straw manning at its finest.
Your view comes from entitlement. You have a right to your partners body because a book says so. I say different. I have a responsibility to my partner because we are in love and build our beliefs together.
Your view teaches subservience. You can add all the context you want, but at the end of the day, there is a line that says "your body belongs to your partner". And that line is used to subjugate.
Whereas a healthy couple would start from the respect that they don't own each other, and then build the boundaries that they are comfortable with.
I did not state a viewpoint other than "I believe that you are considering too narrow a portion of the topic at hand."
I am not in favor subservience in a relationship, except when such subservience is to the relationship itself, such as where you mention having a "responsibility to your partner."
Sure, but that is literally the opposite of the Christian teaching. The previous chapter, 1 Corinthians 6, reads: "You are not your own. You were bought at a price. Glorify God with your body."
Elsewhere it is written: "Present yourselves as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable until God, which is your reasonable act of worship."
These are voluntary acts of obedience in the same way that Jesus, though being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but humbled himself, taking on the form of a servant, and being obedient even to death on a cross. (Philippians 2).
To be a Christian is to take up your cross and follow Christ. Consenting to a lack of consent in how your body is treated hence forward. A martyr's painful death. Or the embrace of your spouse.
> "marry and enjoy sex" is what Paul is trying to say
This is your interpretation and shows your own bias. I read it as "you must have consent from your partner to withhold your body from them". Which is revolting and coercive.
I think their point is if you are a reader of Paul's work and the surrounding text you can deduce pretty soundly he isn't saying take turns in mutual abuse, but something else. Big picture, Christianity has a central, and odd tension, of sacredness of individual, but also perfect unity in community. The Trinity as the prime example. But marriage also as two flesh becoming one. Much of Christian writing is how to resolve that seeming contradiction (individuality with perfect unity and love)
Friend, you are right to question the meaning of the scripture. But, I urge you to continue. Don't stop after you've just begun. Investigate it. This is your kneejerk interpretation. Read the Gospels, read the Acts of the Apostles, see if your interpretation fits.
Reading a helper function for an api call on a web server doesn't tell you what the web server is used for.
You have to keep reinterpreting it until it aligns with whatever the masses currently consider to be true. This has been going on forever. The current hot reinterpretation is to say we’ve been wrong in what the scriptures teach about same-sex relationships and aaacktshually.. it’s fine.
Jesus doesn't say anything very explicit about homosexuality but he's pretty clear that no one should be rich and it's never ok to kill. I've been seeing a lot of hot reinterpretations on that front.
What's notable is that the Rifters trilogy just progresses in intensity and in the overall gloom. Starfish is light reading compared to Behemoth, which is sitting for me on the last chapter, because I couldn't finish it.
I've read his works, in general all his first books are awesome, the sunflowers series is all awesome, and the rest can get a little hard to read (but I still liked them)
In my experience, business people are chomping at the bit to build and manage the ops for their apps, but it's always an "IT Operating Model" that is thrown back at them
This is something that Palantir Foundry supports extremely well. Its data layer is built around the idea that anytime you're making a change, you make a branch, build on branch, only data you modified is copied to the branch, and then you can test it end to end on the branch.
Couldn't agree more. R and dplyrs ability to pass column names as unquoted objects actually reduces cognitive load for new people so much (pure anecdata, nothing to back this up except lots of teaching people).
And that's on top of the vastly simpler syntax compared to what's being shown here
I've been programming for decades. I've used dozens of different, at times enormously esoteric languages. At one point I built ERPs in a language where operators were abbreviated Russian terms. After just a few years of using Lisp dialects I am absolutely convinced - there's no simpler and more readable syntax than of Lisp's. Anyone who doesn't see that, in my eyes just not made the distinction between familiarity and simplicity.
They're measuring how quickly their eyes can parse something they've already seen a thousand times, and calling that readability. But readability isn't recognition speed - it's the cognitive distance between the code and the computation it describes. And on that measure, Lisp is essentially lossless. There's no syntactic residue. No ceremony the language demands for its own sake. What you write is the structure of the thing, all the way down.
"You get used to it. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead..." I don't look at Matrix feeling puzzled anymore. I see the truth.
People who bounce off the parentheses are reacting to something real: it doesn't look like what they already know. But that's not the language failing them. That's just the last bit of the old syntax dying. Give it a few months of structural editing and a proper REPL workflow, and you won't see parentheses anymore - you'll see shape. You'll see depth. And going back to anything else will feel like someone handed you a map drawn in crayon and called it a feature.
Even though I'm firmly in the familiarity camp, I love this description of what it's like to be fully lisp-pilled. I definitely want to try it out one day.
One doesn't need to dance around weird circles to give it a try. VSCode's Calva extension has great "Quickstart guide". Or you can just install Clojure, run it - it drops you into a REPL. Once you ready to get serious, grok some basic structural editing commands (grabbing an expression and moving it somewhere else would suffice) and REPL-driven workflow (Lispers typically don't type into REPL, they eval things directly where the source is)
I enjoyed reading this but felt like it missed a few of the points on why a lot of companies are indexing heavily on the context layer.
1. While AI is capable of driving massive value, chatbots are very rarely the solution
2. You need much more than this sort of text data to represent an enterprise. Timeseries, SAP (and other ERPs), and general relational data is part of building a knowledge graph, ontology, etc
3. Storing it the way this article presents makes it usable for agents, but not humans. Whereas the point of knowledge graph, ontology, etc is to create the same layer for both humans and AI to interact with
> 3. Storing it the way this article presents makes it usable for agents, but not humans. Whereas the point of knowledge graph, ontology, etc is to create the same layer for both humans and AI to interact with
If storing it this way makes it usable for agents, then why don't humans just use agents when they need to interact with it?
Let's say that you want to know who your largest customer is, both by order value and volume. I could either:
1. Prompt my agent and deal with writing the prompt, waiting for the agent to sift through all the data (which would be massive), and pay the token costs, all of which has to be repeated everytime I want to answer this question, OR
2. I check my ontology for the answer, probably in a dashboard, and it takes 5 seconds. I have a link I can freely share around my enterprise and I haven't spent token costs.
Whats more, when I have sent my agent out to some tasks (go find out what revenue we're leaving on the table by not selling spot contracts to our biggest customers) my ontology gives me a few bits of data to validate the agents work against. For humans and AI to work together, they need the same context layer
Yea I agree. for most big enterprises, you probably need robust RBAC and multitenancy.
But I do think this pattern of letting agents figure out your company autonomously in some text-like format will be the core pattern going forward
Exactly this. Having spent almost three decades in enterprise context I see a lot of reinvention of something like a poor mans, unstructured, enterprise architecture - because AI agents.
I keep repeating ”what is good for humans in an organization is also good, or even required, for AI agents”.
Imagine every new instance of an AI agent as a new employee.
With humans its ok to slowly accumulate knowledge through word of mouth, trail and error and the general inertia of larger orgs almost seem structured (or unstructured) knowledge-wise for this.
AI agents will never be useful in high value operations in a larger orgs without organizational knowledge available and reliable.
Pandas is a mess though.