my_hat_stinks

I think you’re misrepresenting that a little. It’s not peer reviewed, doesn’t appear to have any researchers names attached at all, doesn’t mention latent demand, and doesn’t at any point consider that there could be other modes of transport. It reads to me like someone trying to sell their road building project.

The question reads like an XY problem, they describe DB functions for data structures so unless there’s some specific reason they can’t use a DB that’s the right answer. A “spreadsheet for data structures” describes a relational database.

But they need rectangular structure. How do they work on tree structures, like OP has asked?

Relationships. You don’t dump all your data in a single table. Take for instance the following sample JSON:

  "users": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "name": "Alice",
      "email": "alice@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "The Witcher 3",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.8
              },
              {
                "name": "PS4",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 9.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["RPG", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Minecraft",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2011,
                "rating": 9.2
              },
              {
                "name": "Xbox One",
                "release_year": 2014,
                "rating": 9.0
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sandbox", "Survival"]
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "name": "Bob",
      "email": "bob@example.com",
      "favorites": {
        "games": [
          {
            "title": "Fortnite",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.6
              },
              {
                "name": "PS5",
                "release_year": 2020,
                "rating": 8.5
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Battle Royale", "Action"]
          },
          {
            "title": "Rocket League",
            "platforms": [
              {
                "name": "PC",
                "release_year": 2015,
                "rating": 8.8
              },
              {
                "name": "Switch",
                "release_year": 2017,
                "rating": 8.9
              }
            ],
            "genres": ["Sports", "Action"]
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

You’d structure that in SQL tables something like this:

The dbo.favorites table handles the many-to-many relationship between users and games; users can have as many favourite games as they want, and multiple users can have the same favourite game. The dbo.platforms handles one-to-many relationships; each record in this table represents a single release, but each game can have multiple releases on different platforms.

Usually no, unless I’ve left a reply disagreeing then someone else comes along and downvotes them, makes me look like an ass who downvotes anyone I disagree with. I also check my own comments to see if people agree with me but I’ll keep the comment up either way, if I do change my mind I’d rather leave a new comment or add stuff in an edit.

It’s not too difficult to bot votes on lemmy so they’re even more pointless than they are on reddit.

Alice: So, how do you identify?
Bob: Normal.

What’s the odds Bob’s a bigot? Someone asked how to describe their sexuality, “normal” is not a useful answer.

Fuck that, that’s implying any other orientation is abnormal. People should have the right words to describe their sexuality.

Thanks for downvote, but your response is still somewhere between unhelpful and a dog whistle.

The British monarchy primarily “provides” money by owning land and other assets which would otherwise be government-owned. They also “earn” a shitload of money just for existing and still dump significant expenses onto taxpayers.

There is no middle ground between binary options. You have rights or you don’t. You hate or you don’t. “Just a little bigotry” it’s still bigotry. If I say 1+1=2 but you say it’s 3 that does not make the right answer 2.5.

Your worldview is literally the middle ground fallacy.

Supporting human rights isn’t in any way “gaslighting”. It’s very reasonable to ban someone for being a piece of shit.

You are under no obligation to keep a product you don’t like for any reason, companies aren’t entitled to your money by default. You might have had a point if we were talking about some super rare item only one or two companies manufacture but this is about a HDD dock, you’ll probably find 5 different models with identical functionality just by checking your local electronics store.

I have never heard anyone claim returning something is “extreme” before. It’s so mild it should be one of the first options you consider, especially when you ordered online and didn’t get the chance to see the item before purchase. You shouldn’t get saddled with shit just because there’s some “feature” you hate which you weren’t aware of when you bought it. For that reason where I am you’d have a legal right to return almost any order within 14 days of receipt no questions asked, or longer if there’s a defect.

Still a nazi. You can say you hate tall people and want them all to be shot, that won’t stop you being tall. Same thing.

It’s called nazism. People who defend nazis are almost certainly nazis themselves. People who claim the nazi salute was used by Romans are wrong or lying, and also probably nazis; the earliest known record of the salute in a Roman context was created a millennium after the end of the Roman empire.

Edit: It’s probably worth noting that Hitler was likely a fan of the Roman empire. Nazi Germany was known as the “third reich” where the first was the the Holy Roman Empire and the second was the German Empire. It’s likely they appropriated the gesture thinking it was a legitimate Roman salute.

Yes, because the person you replied to is either wrong or lying (some terfs claim terf is a slur). Terfs do self-identify as terfs. A recent prominent example would be Sall Grover, “During this incident, Grover self-identified as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist”.

Terfs by definition exclude women and are therefore not feminist. Hate groups often try to legitimise themselves by adopting more reasonable names even when it goes directly against their views, eg “All lives matter” formed specifically to counter the claim that black lives matter.

Drawing a distinction between privacy and security is kind of nonsense in this context. While they are technically different, they’re only different in the way that an apple and a fruit are different. Privacy is an aspect of security.

If your privacy was violated in any other context you would not feel secure.

That’s a very different question. A smartphone can to some degree emulate the other devices listed so when people are asked to pick only one device most are naturally going to choose that even if it’s not currently their primary device, and since they could only choose one it’s not useful in determining how many people use other devices. It also appears to be a follow-up question asking about second most important devices so it’s definitely not useful out of context.

From that survey question alone you cannot reasonably claim which device is used most often.

If we can’t say nazi what’s a better way to describe an authoritarian who supports far right German political parties and openly throws nazi salutes?

The fact you feel the need to hide significant aspects of yourself from your employer means that these social issues greatly affect you. So much so that I’m not convinced this isn’t a troll, “it’s fine as long as I don’t see it” is literally a homophobe trope.

You’re just not looking hard enough. This was the first hit when I searched.

I can kind of see their thought processes there. They’re sharing right-wing media so they’re likely already primed for those biases, plus that article title is intentionally misleading by suggesting asylum seekers will by default get priority over all other patients. It isn’t until the sixth paragraph that they admit it’s priority care for vulnerable people which is a group that happens to include asylum seekers and undocumented migrants (terms which this writer uses interchangeably, because of course they do). Very poor journalistic integrity even for a rag like this one, imo.

This type of article is intentionally misleading and written primarily to rile up people with poor media literacy. Making people angry makes it easier to manipulate them, and vulnerable groups are naturally less able to fight back so they’re an easy target.

In an ideal world after being challenged they would have reevaluated the source and their beliefs. In practice very few people do that and they just get more entrenched instead. Especially if it’s someone anonymous online just telling them they’re wrong.