Very cool to vibe out with folks anonymously. Almost like the old days where you could go to a rave and be you without fear someone would take pictures or people outside the rave would know who you are. Would love an option to cycle skin colors / tones.
I hear this all the time as a rationalization for why people don't go out anymore, but I don't buy it. You're afraid people on the internet might see you having fun? I've had people shove a phone in my face and take video while I was out dancing. It's rude, but it's not a big deal. The reason people don't go out is because Live Nation/Ticketmaster made live music outrageously expensive and strangled small venues.
I don’t buy that as the or even a reason. I’m older and we had raves before any legit venue would touch them. I remember once a venue was forced to cancel due to local law enforcement pressure. It happened the day before. Word spread real quick that we would just meet in a field on someone’s private land, a place we regularly had keg parties and most teenagers were aware of. We always found a way to party in those days. It was the number one objective every week, knowing where we would party on the upcoming weekend. This all was in 90s before anyone I knew had a mobile phone and the internet was not very useful yet.
My observation is that we were just bored a lot. It has been a long time since young people have been as bored as we were back then.
Totally different decade, but my 90s high school experience was very similar to the movie Dazed and Confused. It’s odd how similar those experiences were versus what has come with the tech disruption of youth.
> My observation is that we were just bored a lot. It has been a long time since young people have been as bored as we were back then.
Eh, I think it depends more on the location, than anything else. I grew up rural, we did basically exactly the same thing as you described, hosting raves in the forest, beaches and what not until we get word that police was on it's way (tiny place, everyone knew everyone, police coming was big news as we didn't have local police).
We did have cellphones, the internet and more, but still, we were bored and dancing all night in a forest was the most fun we could have :) This was between around 2008-2011 sometime.
I dunno, we were "social mediaing" back in 2000s sometime, that's when most of the youth started posting pictures of themselves on the internet and using computers+webcams for communicating among ourselves, many of us used our Sony Ericsson (or similar) phones for taking pictures. I think that particular website that started it all, peaked around 2007 sometime, and was shut down by 2010 already, because of lack of activity. Plenty of sites between 2000-2010 that was the predators to modern social media too, some of them literally centered around sharing and commenting on images, kind of like Instagram, but way before.
For the impact to be felt as a generational shift that is observable IRL, the social media had to reach a certain point of critical mass. The apps/algo needed to be tweaked for addiction. It also become a firehose of content that was pretty realtime, so as to induce FOMO
Things like Flickr was a social site that had absolutely no impact on anyone’s behavior. There was no FOMO because it was just something you browsed at your own pace. Async web forums and email became synchronous chats. The phone started spending more time in your hand than your pocket.
Even things like streaming television wasn’t a binary but an evolution. Netflix streaming started in 2007. It wasn’t until 2012 they became a producer and started the binge phenomenon by releasing a full series all at once. Those first five years practically didn’t matter for Netflix. Many people saw no advantage over the traditional DVD shipping service. Once binging began people were jumping onto the streaming service in droves. It still took a few more years to really reach a point of saturation. Then, there was massive cord cutting and birth of the streaming service landscape of today that is heavily fragmented. But also provides an unlimited supply of entertainment that keeps people appeased and out of meatspace.
Sure there’s always a lag between city and rural on most things, even fashion trends and whatnot. That being said, I think the lag is gone and has fully saturated most places and demographics by now. The tiktokification is a huge factor that only hit in late teens in the US.
> you could go to a rave and be you without fear someone would take pictures or people outside the rave would know who you are
These still exist! Look for events promoted as such, or look for smaller local events for the genres you're interested in - the latter might not ban phones, sure, but the vibe is still what you're seeking. Nobody's recording you.
Maybe I haven't seen enough of his videos. They seem generally informative? Perhaps a bit depressing but I wouldn't say that watching a Tim Snyder video can ruin your life like gambling can.
Repeating something that you heard someone say is the literal definition of hearsay. Typically courts want to hear about facts from people who actually know those facts, not someone who heard someone talking about those facts.
This would fall under the "statement against interest" exception to hearsay, though, because obviously the person who originally said the thing isn't going to want to admit in court that they were committing a crime.
Reporting what you heard someone say is the literal definition of hearsay.
If you want to use someone saying something as evidence in court, they need to say it to the court as directly as is practical. If the person saying it isn't going to say it directly to the court, then it needs to be justified with one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
In this example, it would be allowed because the person saying it wouldn't be willing to admit to a crime in court.
It's a statement not offered to prove the truth of the asserted statement - non-hearsay.
It would be hearsay if offered as evidence that you had meth in your pocket. It would not if offered in evidence you were enquiring about the legality, to show intent.
I bet their data is included too, for two reasons:
First, identity verification data for KYC is a little bit different from fast food or social media in that it's very difficult to live a normal life without being subject to any KYC checks. (I'm sure someone will chime in that they get paid in bitcoin and buy their groceries with cash.) If you are applying for some financial product or service that requires KYC, and they can't find any information about you, you will often either be denied that product or have to jump through a bunch of additional hoops to prove who you are. So it benefits CXOs to have their data included in these datasets, in fact if they are well paid they may well have more activity requiring KYC checks than the average person.
Second, and much more simply, one's own data often makes for a good test case since you know its accuracy.
To turn it around, you should assume anyone in the dark alley is potentially dangerous, and not allow biases or racism to cause you to lower your guard to someone who may end up stabbing you.
You don't have to do anything. But as you say, they are the one in the position of power. If you are working on some side quest they don't see as valuable, it may not end well for you. Doubly so if you are shirking what they see as a high value task for your side quest.
It's not about what is right or who "should" do what, it's about securing the best outcome by making sure you and your manager have the same understanding, even if your manager isn't doing a good job of making sure you have the same understanding. (Also known as "managing upwards.")
Am I right to think this could be used to "inject" limits on the number of rows returned by a user query, or otherwise restrict what users see allowed to do?
I know it sounds silly/crazy but I have a use case where I would like to allow "mostly" trusted users to access the database directly and not through an API, but I need to apply some restrictions on their output.
It can but it's not the primary goal at the moment. If you want to restrict the number of rows returned, you can rewrite the query to add a LIMIT clause. To control which rows your users can see, you can use row-level security.
One thing I was thinking of doing is generating query plans asynchronously and blocking/cancelling queries that would otherwise be expensive and cause downtime. That's on the roadmap.
I am interested in distributed systems and database internals (both traditional and new databases) but find that many database resources tend to be either introductory SQL queries or related to tuning.
I personally like to find new distributed systems, and then learn what techniques they use.
For example learning how serf.io ises Vivaldi, how CockroachDB uses raft multi-group, or why FoundationDB has different processes and they each do.
I try to write interesting stuff on distributed systems, but there's a great discord created by eaton phil on software internals that has a lot of great discussions https://twitter.com/eatonphil
As someone who lacks a formal CS education and wants to know more about how databases work, I have been eagerly awaiting this book. I also want some practical golang projects to work on so this is perfect! I'm so excited!
