Connect to the remote server and run it?

I’ve never once had to change a column definition. Sure in theory that option is available. Better option is to just add a new column with the correct definition then copy over existing data in the old column.

I don’t think that’s really a positive or negative.

And the point about migrations ideally being separate is really just your own opinion. I prefer having the database definition in the same source tree as the application, ideally just a .sql file in the project.

> Better option is to just add a new column with the correct definition

After that you won't be able to change column to NOT NULL. You would need migration to create new table with not null column, copy everything, drop old table and rename the new one.

Edit: unless the table is empty.

Wrong, you can change NOT NULL since 3.53:

https://sqlite.org/releaselog/3_53_3.html

Released a month ago, thanks, didn't know.

How do you migrate in place data that doesn’t convert between types while maintaining a strict condition like NOT NULL?

This is again a scenario I’ve never run into 20ish years of SQL.

You create a nullable column and then change it to not null. Which wasn't possible in SQLite until recently.

I’m not sure what your original point is pointing out.

Some data doesn’t convert is what I’m pointing out regardless of Postgres or SQLite.

Because you can’t just let people do their own thing right?

Maybe their economy isn’t as bubble like as you think?

I've seen many analysts say (I'm no expert myself so I'd have a hard time judging) that the official government figures for things like GDP and so on cannot possibly be accurate. (And before you ask "Which figures, which years, what degree of inaccuracy?" — you'll need to ask someone who actually knows). Which does make it kind of hard to figure anything out about China's economy from outside.

I’ve heard the same. They keep on chugging along despite all the doom mongers.

I think most people throwing shade are doing so of jealousy rather than well thought arguement.

Yes... and no. DJI/BYD, etc are legit amazing. But entire ghost cities filled with unused condos scream bubble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underoccupied_developments_in_...

They’ve been around for ages now, if it hasn’t rocked the boat when their real estate market has been subdued, I’m not sure what will.

Think of how crypto bro’s transitioned to AI bro’s. Same peeps, same hardware, still all looking for a real problem to solve.

I’d wager for the majority of human population, present & past, that the opposite is largely true.

Most people are not well off and anecdotally I also don’t know many happily married couples nor happily married parents.

What would HN be without edgelords going "well akshually..." ? My statement is tautologically true. I don't know anybody whose parents did not have a child. So how much exactly did you "wager" and where do I pick up my winnings?

Directionally, humans want stability before trying to create offspring. This is the whole r/K selection thing. And even though what constitutes stability is going to vary wildly based on culture, expanding the scope to "present & past" is more of an exploration in what constitutes that stability rather than a repudiation of the main point.

You used a lot of big words but nothing repudiates what I said.

Congrats.

I don't know that I consider any of those big words...

Some people think society owes them.

That's so true - the land-owning class believe that society should continue paying them lots of money if that land is to be put to use. Don't get me started on landlords and their passive income requirements.

Yes, society owes a social contract where if you work you can afford to live and have a roof over your head, food to eat, and clothes that aren't Temu plastic rags of worse quality than dystopian sci-fi fiction 'clothes issued to people on basic'.

HN is increasingly bot central, I kind of assume 80% of the respondents are artificial.

Lobsters still got a pulse, largely.

Invitation-only is the future of online communities. Lobsters still has a pulse because you need to know someone to get in and it’s a bad look if you invite annoying people.

I wish lobste.rs would be a tiny bit easier to get access to. Some of my blog posts have been discussed there and every time I try to get access, I can’t get past their IRC stuff.

As in: I just don’t understand how IRC works…

IRC is just Discord but without a hardcoded server address, what's hard about it?

You should overlay a banner on your blog when they send you an HTTP Referer explaining their nonsense. Maybe then they'll get the message.

Then again, maybe they like the ability to critique your posts without you being able to rebut their opinions. It's an effective tactic in online echo chambers.

From their about page: "If you wrote a link that was posted, please reach out in chat, we'd love to have you join the community."

Or redirect to a picture of a testicle in an eggcup.

Well, lobste.rs requires an email to invite a user. If you had one on your profile, or on your github, or on your website I would have done it as a drive-by since your site is interesting and pretty lobste.rs-y content.

FWIW, you might want to consider publishing your e-mail address in your HN profile or on your website. Otherwise it’s hard for people to get in touch with you.

I've been waiting for my lobste.rs invite for years. I joined the IRC for a few days, but being in Australia, rarely saw too much activity. I could chase someone down for an invite, but at that point I just don't care that much.

I was given my invite from a decent person who, I believe, basically has an "open door" policy. I'm happy to pay it forward and give you an invite if you want it. abetusk@mechaelephant.com

im sorry but maybe connecting to irc is a bit of a filter on the users they expect. especially with ai it should be almost no effort.

Reddit is literally the dead internet right now.

It's also not open access. You have to run an invisible tightrope so its algorithms won't automatically shadowban you and then you have to run a barely visible tightrope to get enough karma to not have your posts automatically removed from every subreddit.

Also, Reddit now requires you to verify your ID with Persona.

reddit does okay from a profit standpoint. reddit does terribly from a bot or even a good community standpoint.

> Invitation-only is the future of online communities.

This feels antithetical/dystopian/elitist compared to what online communities are, for me. I think it's ok for some communities to be like this, but I don't think it's the future of online communities.

I think it is better to have some elitist communities, than to drag everyone down to some least common denomination...

I think that was one of the big mistakes/oversight that came with the Internet..

I think some are fine, but if I had to choose one I'd choose open access, so I think it's the more important of the two. And in fact it's because the web is open, "no permission needed" by default that allows elitist groups to exist on the web. So I don't think I see it as a mistake. The alternative would be... You can only create a website if you're invited to the internet by someone who already has access? You have to get approval for your website from some authority before it goes public? Those were all potential futures we imo thankfully and carefully avoided!

That's actually how it already works, but there are large commercial access providers known as "ISPs". Before there were ISPs, you literally could only get on the internet with a direct connection to someone on the internet, usually a large university.

This is called the Eternal September problem, after the influx of fresh users to Usenet at the start of every school year, being extended indefinitely as AOL brought new users continually to Usenet.

Isn't this how alot of discord works? maybe the communities are leniant with inviting but it still happens. A group chat is basically invite only too and that's pretty popular for communication.

I think we need to remove dystopian and elitist from the dictionary because at this point you can't breathe without being accused of it.

Deciding who is in or out is the fundamental basis of any community, that's freedom of association. That's what defines a community. A place anyone can enter is a train station bathroom and that's what the logical terminus of the open internet seems to be.

I think scopes/criteria/boundaries on communities are fine, I disagree that invite-only (as one implementation of community boundaries) is the future of online communities.

Although the statement "invite-only only is the future of online communities" isn't super well defined (what does it mean to "be the future"?), so I think the comments are debating past each other.

Elitism and hierarchy are good. Drowning everything in slop and darkness is bad. Giving everyone something to strive for is good.

That's an unsubstantiated and false accusation wrt the 80%. If you believe it, why are you even here? Are you one of them?

Bad bot.

One of the most foundational insights I’ve ever had in IT is clients don’t know what they want until you shove it in their face. And only then do they say no, no, no, change this, this and that.

Same story as building a house. There’s so many unknowns.

it's cunningham's law where the fast LLM generated iteration is the confidently wrong answer that the clients will correct

What’s the business? If it’s anything other than raising equity then you didn’t answer the question.