I am far from being a database expert, I just know enough basics to query what I need, so feel free to correct/complete the following:

- Mongo has been built to store json objects -> Yes, but from what I understand benchmarks indicate that PostgreSQL is faster at reading/storing/indexing json/jsonb content. I don't think that it is good reason to use it.

- Mongo is schemaless -> There might be some usecases, but I bet in most cases this problem can be worked around. Especially in a database with JSONB support.

- MongoDB horizontal scaling is way easier than PostgreSQL. Yes, it seems that scaling horizontally Mongo is extremely easy compared to any other relational database.

And ... that's it. But there is probably more.

At the moment, here's how I would summarize MongoDB benefits if asked my opinion when starting a project:

- For a small projects or a prototype: ease of use, ease of configuration, don't require too much thinking into my data model while I am experimenting

- For a bigger project: horizontal scaling should be easier

Does that sound accurate to you? Am I missing anything important?

The fact that I theoretically implement a web-based CMS in C and it could be more performant than all these web-language CMS products doesn't mean that C is better for making a CMS.

That's nonsense. I've taught people to use SQL before, even people with little to no programming experience. After the initial concepts were understood it was fairly easy to gradually expand knowledge over time.

The basic SQL keywords to start getting useful information out of a RDBMS are:

SELECT

FROM

WHERE

INNER JOIN

LEFT JOIN

ON

AS

AND

OR

Those 9 keywords give you a good starting point for exploring SQL. It's really not hard. You could probably learn enough to get started in a couple of hours, and it's easy to expand your knowledge as and when you need to once you've got the basics sorted.

The RDBMS is a lie. It's a beautiful kernel of relational theory wrapped in a 60-foot ball of hacks, tweaks, duct-tape, bubble-gum, and hate. The document store doesn't lie. It doesn't pretend. It's honest that it's stupid and it's a glorified hashtable with a string in it. It doesn't make any ridiculous pretenses of having a Sufficiently Smart Query Optimizer that will inevitably let you down and leave you pulling your hair out trying to figure out why on earth a simple, straightforward query is running so goddamned slow.

Then you build a complicated model and have to figure out from the query plan why your query is slow and deal with indices and foreign keys and all that nonsense.

Meanwhile an object DB may be inefficent and clumsy, but it gets all of that stuff out of the way. Also, if you don't want to join, you can work around that by duplicating the data all over the place. Something you can't do with an RDBMS because tables are fundamentally flat and so you can't stuff a parent-child relationship into a single table.

You have software engineer you similarly should have a data engineer (i.e. a DBA). Nearly 50 years has passed and we still didn't find a better way to represent data, so perhaps it is the right model. The only difficult part is to bother enough to learn it.

> oddly-named datatypes with unexpected behaviors [...] 60-foot ball of hacks, tweaks, duct-tape, bubble-gum, and hate

That's only when using MySQL

> Meanwhile an object DB may be inefficent and clumsy, but it gets all of that stuff out of the way. Also, if you don't want to join, you can work around that by duplicating the data all over the place. Something you can't do with an RDBMS because tables are fundamentally flat and so you can't stuff a parent-child relationship into a single table.

You absolutely can store data inefficiently in RDBMS for example in Postgres you can create a table with two columns one named key, and another data. The data type for the second column can be JSONB. End you're essentially have equivalent of Mongo's collection.

But in that case you store data inefficiently and if your application starts evolving and you need to make different queries things will get more complex quickly.

You shouldn't jump in at the deep end when learning this stuff, getting a feel for how an existing database works before creating your own is helpful, and you can download sample databases to play around with when you start learning if you don't have access to one already. Aside from this recommendation, if you're starting out learning about RDBMS, then SQlite is a good starting point, and the setup of a SQlite database is fairly simple.

If you're starting from scratch with a brand new database, here are some of the SQL keywords you'll find useful:

CREATE TABLE

ALTER TABLE

DELETE TABLE

TRUNCATE TABLE

INSERT INTO

UPDATE

SET

DELETE FROM

VARCHAR

INT

DECIMAL

PRIMARY KEY

FOREIGN KEY

REFERENCES

Furthermore, if you're using a decent DB GUI frontend, you don't even need to remember most of the above, aside from VARCHAR (for strings), INT (for whole numbers) and DECIMAL (for numbers with a fractional element). Reason being, you can do all of the database setup graphically. Tools like SQL Server Management Studio help in reducing friction.

While I love that stack, it took me a while to realize that for most of my side projects, building alone a prototype with all those things is killing my productivity. A messy Rails api with angular1 or even Rails + ERB are way quicker.

Letting go best/latest practices and go for the the non-fancy (and sometimes a bit dirty) way is harder than it seems.

This summer, I watch Twin Peaks The Return, some episodes are the weirdest things I have seen on a mainstream TV channel. I am amazed it was allowed to air at prime time.

I'm on the same camp. Absolute majority of TV series from pre-Internet times were dull, boring and non distinctive. Sure, there were some amazing exceptions (mostly named throughout this thread), but I personally, find many better TV series in the span of the last 10 years than in previous 30 years or so. What impresses me most that recent series are much more realistic, characters are deep, themes are more muddy not unlike in older series where black&white characters, good vs evil themes, mandatory happy ending etc. was nearly universal. Imagine something like Game of Thrones (not that it's the paramount of our times, but more for its brutality, nudity etc.) being aired on prime time during 70s or 80s..

I'll suggest that the difference isn't that people know the details of how for example checks clear, few non-experts learn all the details, BUT virtually everyone knows where to go if there is a problem (bank branch). Most non-experts at this point in crypto currency would have no idea where to even go to investigate a problem.

If expensive ugly paintings are not a Ponzi scheme, then cryptocurrencies are not a Ponzi scheme.

Even if all of those beliefs above were true, it still wouldn't be a Ponzi scheme. As someone else posted in here, Ponzi Scheme has a fairly specific definition which "Gold" doesn't meet.

Even if all of those beliefs above were true, it still wouldn't be a Ponzi scheme. As someone else posted in here, Ponzi Scheme has a fairly specific definition which "[Cryptocurrency]" doesn't meet.

On the other hand, it is not likely you can deploy some magic oil machine in your closet with almost 0 investments and start producing $5c / barrel oil.

There's no way an economy can be defined by something of no practical value.

[1] https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/3/what-is-meant...

[2] https://www.ethereum.org/token

Bitcoin matches this definition exactly since pumping up the currency is not connected to any real world productive activity.

Ethereum has some theoretical practical uses but most of the ICO nonsense is pure Ponzi.

Defining a Ponzi can be difficult because in order for something to truly be a Ponzi scheme it must be engaged in with fraudulent intent.

Really stupid people who "invest" in really stupid things and waste their money on useless stupid activity don't count as a Ponzi because they don't have fraudulent intent. They are just really stupid.

Whatever participants in digital currencies are not in the first category are in the second category so it isn't much to be excited about.

You are buying the currency, once you receive it the contract with the coin's creators is fulfilled, you are not an investor, you do not own any shares of any company. It is a one-way transaction.

Perhaps you meant pyramid scheme, of which ICOs are also not an example.

The way to tell your understanding is wrong is that it would describe every currency, and every possible asset (land, valuables, etc).

... I get the other advantages to Ethereum, but it's not Bitcoin where there is actually a distributed number of people managing it.

Are you sure you're talking about Ethereum, and not Ripple? The vast majority of ether is not controlled by one company.

It is quite rare in history that a fiat currency was put in place, that didn't have a corresponding broad based tax in order to enforce its use and give the issuer, usually a sovereign or government, an advantage in being the source of the fiat.

You can redeem them for the privilege of operating a legally distinct incorporated business entity in the US.

At a strictly technical level, I believe it may still be possible to live your life entirely lawfully, without being taxed, but the amount of legal analysis necessary to work out exactly how that may be accomplished is beyond me. It's far easier to just earn enough dollars, and then pay up.

(Note that relying on Supreme Court opinions will not get you to anywhere you might want to be if the IRS decides you need to pay them.)

You have a right to vote, so levying a tax upon the act of voting is not permissible. Obviously, if it is a right, it means that even someone with zero money should be able to do it, and you can't pay a tax if you have zero money. The tax prevents poor people from fully exercising their rights.

As such, taxes that appear to be on the exercise of a right are usually worded such that they are actually excises on a legal privilege that is suspiciously similar, or upon an accessory privilege, without which the exercise of the right is largely pointless.

You can build as many steel mills as you want on your own property. But doing so is pointless if you cannot transport the steel over public roads or sell it to customers in the public marketplace, unless you have a great need for vast quantities of steel on your own property. There are quite a lot of foil-hat-wearers out there that try to tease out the line of separation between taxable privileges and untaxable rights, but the reality is that none of their opinions hold any sway unless they have millions of dollars to spend on lawyers and lobbyists, or millions of supporters to march on the capital. As such, a lot of "Sovereign Citizen" propaganda revolves around the insane idea that a state with near unlimited power may be compelled to obey its own laws, even when doing so would be contrary to its own interests.

This is the same phenomenon that results in your tabletop RPG's resident rules lawyer getting their characters killed off. For any obscure rule they can argue to their own advantage, the GM can always just roll behind a screen and say, "Oh dear, the goblin scored a critical hit. What an unlucky occurrence. Your character dies. Again."

For instance, the Supreme Court has also ruled that it is permissible to prevent someone from growing a crop on their own property, never to be exported off of that property, because that satisfies some demand that would otherwise impact prices in interstate commerce. Essentially, the state said it can prevent you from growing corn in your garden, because that means you won't buy as much corn--which could be imported from another state--at the grocery store. In order for that ruling to be consistent with the poll tax opinion, the US cannot recognize that engaging in commerce and providing for your own livelihood is a natural right. Because that would mean it couldn't be taxed, and the government needs those taxes more than you need to buy your own food and shelter.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that many of the things you may call "legal right" are probably just legal privileges, and that if something is taxed, the government does not recognize that you have a right to have it or do it. This is disturbing to some people, because it provides a practical test to unequivocally show that they have far fewer rights recognized by law than they believe themselves to have.

If the power has shifted to an elite who controls the great majority of the currency, and has the power to withdraw/dump coins (basicaly influencing the supply side of the market, and control the value) - I'm pretty sure there are people/organizations who invested into such positions - and have the power to simulate value and draw people into this gold rush...

Where is the line drawn between this and a scam/fraud?

Is it when the control party withdraws all the value from it and dumps it?

For as long as everything is being valued in a positive way, everything is fine?

According to: http://www.salaire-brut-en-net.fr/ The after-employer-tax, he should get: 34650k

From which he still need to substract the income tax which is paid directly by employee. It is roughly a month of after tax salary -> 2880.

In total, I would say that a 45k gross income becomes 31k after tax.

Edit : I've updated it, thanks for spotting that one. I should have talked about "net" revenue when doing my calculations !

There is an agreement between France and several countries including Canada. Once you will retire, if you have worked 10 years in Canada and 30 years in France, then you will get 3/4 of your money from the French Pension plan, and 1/4 from the Canadian one.

This agreement works whether you are French or Canadian.