This sounds like yet another anti-China thread that comes the same day as the new security law for Hong Kong (I'm sure it's just a coincidence).
I wonder: does China comment on repressive laws approved in other countries? Isn't Hong Kong a part of China? Why wouldn't they approve any laws they see fit? Why are the people that are concerned about this never concerned about repressive laws approved in US-friendly countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia or the Emirates?
And why all of a sudden is everyone so concerned with what China has been doing for decades (something that, while definitely authoritarian, is not exceedingly nefarious either)?
It's a serious question. We all knew how China works, and even if we thought it's something that goes against some of our values, we never considered it bad enough to be a deal breaker.
So what happened that made us all of a sudden become so fixated about it?
You just said you never saw Postgres at Yahoo. Yet Yahoo had possibly the world’s largest Postgres installation. I consider that legendary. I’ve certainly been aware of it for over a decade. It was also an early (?) columnar store which is now commonplace among OLAP databases. Seems like if it didn’t start a trend it was at least an early adopter. I’d say that’s legendary too. Even today the scale is impressive.
Now you say you did see some
Postgres but there was more MySQL. Fine, you were there, I’ll take your word for it. But I can’t reconcile your own statements on this. Yahoo very clearly used Postgres.
You ran a 2PB MySQL install. Cool, I’d love to hear about that, truly. Do you have any written accounts or talks about that?
The article says Yahoo bought Mahat Technologies for their columnar version of Postgres. That sounds similar to Redshift or Greenplum but I think it is different. I can’t find a clear history of Greenplum’s origins or what happened to Mahat. Looks like Redshift came from ParAccel which was a separate project. From what I can find there were a lot of similar projects at the time.
No, it could be a third variable or it could even be that women avoiding STEM somehow increases gender equality.
But regardless of the cause, if there is an inverse correlation then pursuing gender parity in STEM is at best a huge waste of effort and at worst counterproductive for all parties involved.
The graph in the article doesn't look too far removed from a cloud though, so I question the strength of the correlation.