This is deeply outrageous and criminal. Every American should be ashamed.

I mean we elected an outrageous criminal into office. I think we are in a post-shame society.

The article seems to me to be quite poorly written. In addition, voluntarily or not, this begins to resemble research work, without the formalism that would be necessary. So, I have the impression that we can objectively get nothing out of it.

Could such a mechanism be used for interstellar travel ?

Of the frogs? Sure!

Be careful though, if you send an all female human crew enhanced by frog genes, some of them might change sex on the way.

Only guaranteed to last for four or five months, so probably would be a very short interstellar travel

No. Article says they have 1000x sugar in their blood. When we get to 10x we tend to die.

We could replace some of the Glucose with Xylitol. Xylitol is another sugar that protects the body from Advanced Glycation End Products. AGEs are what makes glucose so dangerous.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/advanced-glycation-end-...

Yes the good old days of spaghetti code where everything was simpler before it became complicated for me. Let me code my soup of ifs in methods returning void / Unit, there is nothing better, and that these FP lesson givers leave us alone.

Ok but just make sure nobody else has to inherit it, and it’ll be fine.

But why, if there's a perfectly good, appropriate enough, and concise term available? Being verbose does not scale.

I’m not aware of what specific or appropriate verb I should have used. Happy to edit the post if you can educate me :)

That is an important comment. I really like Postgres, as it is the only free RGDB allowing complex SQL (MySQL is improving), and is also reliable, but some people need to realize that the F22/Cessna comparison is not exagerated.

I professionally use both Postgres and Oracle, for many years, and can confirm that Oracle is so much more advanced.

In addition to the features you listed, I can think of : real-time query monitoring, active session history, inline function definition in SQL, global partitioned indexes, in-memory column store, much more advanced parallel execution capabilities, adaptive plans during query execution, bloom-filters, optimizer baselines, SQL macros, Exadata for tuning at the hardware level, Golden Gate for replication, Enterprise manager for monitoring...and a lot more actually.

And of course : Optimizer hints

+1 to Groovy.

Can be very simple and elegant, like a better Python, on the JVM.

But also very rigorous, as a Java superset, with powerful features like mixing dynamic and static compilation in the same class.

Or even deep, with run-time metaprogramming and compile-time AST manipulation capabilities (giving tools like Gradle, Spock...).

And you have of course multiline interpolated Strings. And so much.

I've been using Groovy extensively to script and automate inside of Jenkins, and hoo boy it's actually kinda nice.

My absolute favorite thing is being able to do something like:

    someIntegerCollection = someStringCollection*.toInteger()

I also find the use of closures for things like collection filtering to be quite nice:

    canadianUsers = someUserCollection.findAll { user ->
      user.countryCode = "CA"
    }

The equivalent in Python is a little more cumbersome and overly verbose:

    canadianUsers = [user for user in someUserCollection if user.countrycode = "CA"]

I'll still be writing things in Python whenever I can, but when I do write in Groovy there's a lot of nice stuff I get to have.

And if you need it, static typing is one annotation away... This is such an underestimated feature. While prototyping it might be easier to use dynamic typing, but once a project becomes complex and has more people working on it etc, - you might want to switch it to statically-typed. Groovy simplifies this immensely and minimizes the amount of code that needs to rewritten.

>>OOP is fundamentally a paradigm about modelling a mutable world

Many interesting points in this comment, but I am not sure about the mutable part of this assertion. I see those two concepts often presented as fundamentally intricated but modelisation is an effort of abstraction not tied to implementation choices, and objects can be perfectly immutable.

Using these words, I would simply say OOP is fundamentally a coding paradigm about modelling a system, nothing more. And that is why it has been so successful.

Using OOP and avoiding mutability when appropriate, I would say you get most of FP benefits without abandoning the modelisation capabilities and objects features.

And more and more FP constructs are now integrated in OOP languages. Then APIs can become more important than the language itself.

That's what have been demonstrated by modern Java in my opinion.

So ankward to find my stereotypical complaining fellow citizens here on HN.

>>A language with good orthogonality is smaller, more consistent, and is easier to learn due to there being few exceptions from the overall set of rules (wikipedia btw)

table = (SELECT column | scalar expression FROM graph | table WHERE ..GROUP BY ... HAVING... ORDER BY...)

So in SQL, each scope is a table and that is the main primitive.

More metrics would be needed to criticize SQL orthogonality, instead of providing only one example of subqueries as scalar expressions, when they more generally produce tables.

Actually, SQL use the same query syntax for scalars and for tables and that could be seen as good orthogonality.