!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
I'm a tech interested guy. I've touched SQL once or twice, but wasn't able to really make sense of it. That combined with not having a practical use leaves SQL as largely a black box in my mind (though I am somewhat familiar with technical concepts in databasing).
With that, I keep seeing [pic related] as proof that Elon Musk doesn't understand SQL.
Can someone give me a technical explanation for how one would come to that conclusion? I'd love if you could pass technical documentation for that.
I don't follow. Wouldn't that lend credence to his assertion that it's incorrect to assume that everything in government is SQL?
People here are being irrationally obtuse about the possibility that an agency that's existed since the 1930s may keep business-critical records on legacy systems predating relational databases. Systems serving a national agency may not migrate databases frequently.
What's he's arguing is that the government doesn't use SQL at all.
Were those his exact words? When words are ambiguous, are we selecting interpretations that serve best in the contention? Does the context suggest something obvious was left unstated? Yours seems like a forced interpretation.
Always, sometimes, here? In typical Twitter fashion, it's brief and leaves room for interpretation.
In context, always or here makes the most sense as in "This dumbass thinks the government always uses SQL." or "This dumbass thinks the government uses SQL here." Does it matter some other database is SQL if this one isn't? No. With your interpretation, he pointlessly claims that it does matter for no better reason than to discredit himself. With narrower interpretations, he doesn't. In a contention, people don't typically make pointless claims to discredit themselves. Therefore, narrower interpretations make more sense. Use context.
All I did here was apply textbook guidelines for analyzing arguments & strawman fallacies as explained in The Power of Logic. I welcome everyone to do the same.
A problem with objecting to a proposition that misrepresents the original proposition is that the objector fails to engage with the actual argument. Instead, they argue with themselves & their illusions, which looks foolish & isn't a valid argument. That's why strawman is a fallacy.
The fact is there's very little information here. We don't know which database he's referring to exactly. We don't know its technology. Some of us have worked enough with local government & legacy enterprise systems to know that following any sort of common industry standards is an unsafe assumption. No one here has introduced concrete information on any of that to draw clear conclusions, though there's an awful lot of conjecture & overreading.
He seemed to use the word de-duplicated incorrectly. However, he also explained exactly what he meant by that, so the word hardly matters. Is there a good chance he's wrong that multiple records with the same SSN indicate fraud? Without a clear explanation of the data architecture, I think so.
I despise idiocy. Therefore, I despise what Musk is doing to the government. Therefore, I despise it when everyone else does it.
Seeing this post keep popping up in the lemmy feed is annoying when it's clear from context that there's nothing there but people reading more into it.
We don't have to become idiots to denounce idiocy.
That is all you need. He's not saying "This retard thinks the SSA uses SQL". He is saying "the government" which means all of it. Saying someone is a retard because they think the government uses SQL means Elon doesn't think they do because we all know he doesn't consider himself a retard.
You are looking for ambiguity where there is none.
Nah, that's ignoring context irrationally. Context matters. I'll show.
Can SSA not be called “the government”?
So, let's try your suggested interpretation.
That seems to agree with mine.
However, you denied ambiguity of language, and that context matters, so let's explore that: which government? The Brazilian government? Your state government? Your local government? No? How do you know? That's right: context.
Why stop there? There's more context: a Social Security database was specifically mentioned.
Does “the government” always mean all of it? When a federal agent knocks someone's door & someone gripes "The goddamn government is after me!" do they literally mean the entire government? I know from context I or anyone else can informally refer to any part of the government at any level as "the government". I think you know this.
Likewise, when people refer to the ocean or the sky or the people, they don't necessarily mean all of it or all of them.
Another way to check meaning is to test whether a proposition still makes sense when something obvious unstated is explicitly written out.
Still make sense? Yes. Could that be understood from context without explicitly writing it out? Yes.
A refrain: