> I feel like our culture has a strong anti-golf bias
Golf, generally, is pretty expensive. It's like minimum $50 for an outing, you need equipment, correct clothes, etc. Some places require membership, often priced intentionally exclusively. It's pretty natural for something exclusionary to get a negative cultural bias.
Oh, and it is a terrible resource hog. You can't fit many people on a golf course at any given time without disrupting gameplay, and all that grass requires a lot of water and maintenance.
> any reason to spend a couple hours outside with my friends sounds amazing
This is, of course, available in many forms that don't involve hitting balls with sticks, but also there are many varieties of ball+stick that satisfy this.
Golfing is an artificial competitive activity that exists in an artificial and manicured version of nature. There is nothing wrong with it if you like the activity, but you can just go for a hike or stroll in a park if you want to be with friends outside.
Japanese tea gardens are pretty artificial and manicured, and they’re awesome. It’s great to have undespoiled natural beauty, and it’s also cool to see what people can do with a landscape.
Their product looks promising. It looks like the PostGres schema and writes have to be "Iceberg-aware": special work to get around the fact that a small write results in a new, small Parquet file. That's not the end of the world - but perhaps ideally, you wouldn't be aware of Iceberg much at all when using PostGres. That might be a dream though.
Fully using PostGres without awareness of Iceberg would require full decoupling, and a translation layer in between (Debezium, etc). That comes with its own problems.
So perhaps some intimacy between the PostGres and Iceberg schemas is a good thing - especially to support transparent schema evolution.
DuckLake and CrunchyBridge both support SQL queries on the backing Iceberg tables. That's a good option. But a big part of the value of Iceberg comes in being able to read using Spark, Flink, etc.
I'd argue the bigger value is keeping the data in one storage place and bringing the compute to it. Works especially well for Big Corp use cases where entire divisions of the corp go their own way. Throw in M&A activity and it is a good hedge for the unknown (I.e you might be an Databricks and Azure shop and you just bought a Snowflake & AWS company). Keep the data in an open table format, and let everyone query using their preferred engine to their hearts desire.
That’s a really good read but I can’t believe they covered all of that history of tariffs, referenced the firing on Fort Sumter and never pointed out that Fort Sumter existed almost entirely for…tariff collection.
It’s an island right in the middle of the entrance to Charleston Harbor.
Does it feel like this site is itself a vulnerability? It seems like being able to go type in anybody's email address and just get a list of sites where it was found would be part of an OSINT process.
Shouldn't it at least send you a link to verify that you control the address before showing your results?
> Does it feel like this site is itself a vulnerability? It seems like being able to go type in anybody's email address and just get a list of sites where it was found would be part of an OSINT process.
I think it is a reasonable trade-off. For non-technical people (i.e. ~everyone) it provides a really useful service where you can see if your data has been leaked and what passwords to reset. For bad guys it makes their lives a little easier by creating a quick lookup and potentially knowledge about some leaks they weren't aware of, but ultimately there'd be a dark web version if HIBP didn't exist.
I think there's also a lot of PR value in a site like HIBP. If a non-technical person sees a headline like "400 million customer records leaked by Big Corp" it feels pretty abstract, but if you go and type your email address into HIBP and see a list of companies who have leaked your email address (and most likely some other data) it feels more personal.
I guess the assumption is that bad actors have access to the data anyway so putting such verification process is not deterring any bad actor in any way
Most online criminals will already have this or know how to get it with even the slightest bit of research, so it's not really a big deal in 99% of the cases. I think the net good is better than the net bad by orders of magnitude.
I felt the exact same way. Especially because I saw my email had been registered and leaked by some seedy looking conservative news site full of Trump propaganda. I always knew people could sign others up for junk "malicious subscriptions" and suspected that is what happened when I would get this trash in my inbox, but now seeing that other people can also see it very publicly is disturbing. How are they to know I didn't sign up for this myself? I'd hate to think people were thinking that about me.
Language learning is the classic use case, but I also use it from everything from historical facts to encyclopedia entries on a subject I’m trying to master.
Probably the simplest use case to get started is improving your English vocabulary. (Assuming English is your first language.) I try to add a card for any word I come across that I don’t know the meaning of, and it works very well.
Try to learn a different writing system, alphabet or not. Arabic, Cyrillic, Hangul, whatever. It has finite number of cards and you don't need large context to understand them.
It’s probably worth it just for their people.