Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

qntm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#11

Post by potatolicious »

Sujan wrote: post #3
kirse wrote: post #2

Is this how were going to sneak useless articles onto the front page now? Take completely-unrelated-to-Hacking topic X and apply secondary "Engineering/Hacker opinion" Y to it? "Well, condition Y now makes this Hacker-related, let's submit it!"

Have you read it? It is more about the connection of database engineering and "the real world" than about gay marriage.

I find it very interesting because the solution he came to is actually how it works in many cultures - i.e. binary marriages.

Different cultures have different contexts when it comes to marriage. Some are monogamous, but even more are polygamous, where the husband marries the wives, or the wife marries the husbands... It all screams "graph", and I think in the end that's the only way we can represent it.

Which is funny, because that's already how we represent any other form of human relationships - romantic or otherwise...

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#12

Post by yters »

potatolicious wrote: post #11
Sujan wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read it? It is more about the connection of database engineering and "the real world" than about gay marriage.

I find it very interesting because the solution he came to is actually how it works in many cultures - i.e. binary marriages. Different cultures have different contexts when it comes to marriage. Some are monogamous, but even more are polygamous, where the husband marries the wives, or the wife marries the husbands... It all screams "graph", and I think in the end that's the only way we can represent it. Which is fun…

I think a graph is too static and either/or ish. Instead, there should be links defining the relationship between everyone and everyone, where the links' values are a function of something; such as time, or the values of other links, etc.

But then this raises the question of how this maps to the legal/social realm? Well, first we have to chip everyone. Then, once we've extracted the global social network, we can define, in real time, the legal and social value and rights a person has at any given instant.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#13

Post by potatolicious »

kirse wrote: post #5
Sujan wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read it? It is more about the connection of database engineering and "the real world" than about gay marriage.

I did, in fact, read the article before posting this, and would have been entirely fine with the article if it just objectively looked at the database issues without injecting... -- This: It's asinine to do it this way. However, there is a good reason why I haven't just skipped schemas (schemae?) One to Six. There are a lot of people in the world who actually think like this. This is their for-real, no-joking concept…

So he has an opinion on this subject, big deal. How is this any different than a guy writing about "Java sucks" or "Ruby rocks"?

I suspect the only reason you objective to this "political slant" is because you disagree with it.

And to be fair, although he is obviously pro-gay marriage, the article was actually fairly tame in terms of promoting it, or condemning the opposition. It's a lot tamer than most anti-gay marriage writings I've seen.

And is there any fault in pointing out that places prohibiting gay marriage (especially in America) tend to be more religious?

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#14

Post by Sujan »

axod wrote: post #8
kirse wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did, in fact, read the article before posting this, and would have been entirely fine with the article if it just objectively looked at the database issues without injecting... -- This: It's asinine to do it this way. However, there is a good reason why I haven't just skipped schemas (schemae?) One to Six. There are a lot of people in the world who actually think like this. This is their for-real, no-joking concept…

I agree. It's just a political rant disguised as a database article. "They do not grasp that men and women are interchangeable" - sure, because men can give birth too. Right?

marriage isn't about giving birth.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#15

Post by Sujan »

syntax-case wrote: post #9
kirse wrote: post #2

Is this how were going to sneak useless articles onto the front page now? Take completely-unrelated-to-Hacking topic X and apply secondary "Engineering/Hacker opinion" Y to it? "Well, condition Y now makes this Hacker-related, let's submit it!"

I'll get downmodded for saying this, but HN is basically: web programming - the gay perspective.

is this a minus or just a way to seperate these two things like in a headline or title? (sorry, not a native speaker. these little things sometimes irritate me)

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#16

Post by Sujan »

yters wrote: post #10

What a speciest. Or rather, what a sentiencetist. Sure, marrying myself is a tax scam, but marrying my rock isn't. My rock needs regular polishing, and why should sentient beings get all the rights? They just happen to have a more complex AI algorithm than my rock does, and that's not its fault. He should get rid of the 'human' heading altogether and just have 'thing.' Plus, things aren't static, they are composed of…

> Maybe each particle should have its own entry

Premature Databaseation...

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#17

Post by axod »

Sujan wrote: post #14
axod wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It's just a political rant disguised as a database article. "They do not grasp that men and women are interchangeable" - sure, because men can give birth too. Right?

marriage isn't about giving birth.

I agree. But you can't claim that "men and women are interchangeable", when for some things, they are clearly not.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#18

Post by yters »

Sujan wrote: post #16
yters wrote: post #10

What a speciest. Or rather, what a sentiencetist. Sure, marrying myself is a tax scam, but marrying my rock isn't. My rock needs regular polishing, and why should sentient beings get all the rights? They just happen to have a more complex AI algorithm than my rock does, and that's not its fault. He should get rid of the 'human' heading altogether and just have 'thing.' Plus, things aren't static, they are composed of…

> Maybe each particle should have its own entry Premature Databaseation...

How would you construct the DB?

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#19

Post by Sujan »

axod wrote: post #17
Sujan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

marriage isn't about giving birth.

I agree. But you can't claim that "men and women are interchangeable", when for some things, they are clearly not.

I understood his point was that in marriage (without the stuff culturally connected to it) they are. And this sounds valid to me.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#20

Post by silentbicycle »

Sujan wrote: post #15
syntax-case wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll get downmodded for saying this, but HN is basically: web programming - the gay perspective.

is this a minus or just a way to seperate these two things like in a headline or title? (sorry, not a native speaker. these little things sometimes irritate me)

As a native speaker, I'm pretty sure it's a separator. Reading it as "web programming: the gay perspective" may help.

I'm disregarding the content of their point, but that's the form.

Post reply on HN