maybe you shouldn't trust the words of terrorists in the first place, their words about the number of people killed, the number of children killed, especially when everyone under 19 is counted as a child, even if this 'child' is holding a machine gun or a grenade launcher.

Relational data models were proposed by Edgar F. Codd in 1970, SQL is only one of the languages that were proposed to work with the relational databases. SQL is an idea that there has to be an easy to use computer language to communicate information between humans and the underlying RDB. Chaberlin seems to be peddling a different language, that somehow translates data between an RDB and whatever passes for modern language 'of the web' (Javascript).
RDBMS is not going anywhere, many people just want to make their money on adding various layers of indirection, just like XML did for some in the past.

I was riding my monowheel yesterday, on a trail, where people walk, bike, ride all sorts of contraptions. Here is what I can say about trying to predict what anyone does:

as long as a person is riding something, he is paying infinitely more attention than someone who is just walking, standing there. I was closing in on a couple of girls, they walked in front of me in the same direction, so they didn't see anything happening behind them, they walked on the right side of the road, so this is all good, all of a sudden one of them decides she wants her picture to be taken (the other one took it). So what does she do? She streak across the path, without stopping to think for a microsecond, without looking sideways even, never mind behind her. She crosses the path and strikes a pose, the other one turning to take her picture. Lucky for me, I was still a few meters back when she did that. I was going to pass them on the left (this is the opposite side of the path clearly, people bike and walk both ways on it). I rode between them. When I close on anyone from behind I either have enough speed to pass them in a fraction of a second on the left side or I tell them to watch for me, passing on the left. I imagine that we could have actually collided, but she would have collided with anyone, a bike or a pedestrian walking slightly faster, the only difference would have been the degree of damage. She would have been thrown, had I hit her, I had some protection, she obviously didn't have any.

There is nothing that can be done, you cannot control people's motion, I mean we cannot install 'self driving' into people's heads. They turn into you on highways, they don't look and do all sorts of things, oblivious about the surroundings completely, always amazed that something actually happens after they do something like that, as if life is supposed to protect them from every stupid thing they do, as if they are the only ones in space and there is nothing around them, nothing moving in any direction at all.

Beside the obvious problem of privacy invasion with systems like this, the reality is that there is no amount of technology that can save people from their own lack of thinking.

Nuclear - this is what we need, it doesn't emit CO2 and it works around the clock and provides massive amounts of energy and it doesn't degrade the way solar does and it can be easily controlled and the waste is stable and becomes more and more stable over time, unlike what the detractors tell us. This is what we need, it's not what we are getting obviously.

I think there are a few stories that should be posted every day, over and over again, there are answers to these stories that should be posted over and over again, the only thing that works with people is constant repetition, you can even teach people to sympathize with terrorists, like the idiots who chant for palestine and hamas, I am always amused by women on campuses and the non binary individuals, homosexuals and trans people who rally for Islamic causes, I wish them to get what they are chanting for, I just want to be there when the Islam does to them what it is supposed to do to them.

So we can teach people to be anything, any ridiculous thing at all on Tik Tok and such, this means that it is a failure of the thinking community that there are so many ignoramuses out there preventing the obvious solutions to the most pressing problems. We have to use nuclear instead of coal, gas, oil. We have to stop terrorism, which means supporting Israel and Ukraine. We have to deal with the failing economies by shrinking down government spending and allowing people to work for living instead of relying on government hand outs. Those are clearly unpopular opinions, they are fortunately or unfortunately the correct ones.

Clearly you didn't understand what I wrote, which is why you are so hostile. Reducing energy consumption per person in the USA or other 1st world countries means exactly this: reduce production and consumption, which will be achieved by stagflation. However it will not improve the infrastructure, it will not turn off coal, gas and oil powerplants. So those powerplants will keep spewing CO2, but also the loss of productivity will lead people to use other means of using energy and it will not be anything that reduces CO2 production, it will increase CO2 production.

You live in what you identify as 3rd world, so are you building nuclear power plants there? New hydroelectric power plants? What sort of power do you use daily? Your personal consumption aside, how does your country power itself?

The USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, South Korea, Japan and many others are capable of switching to nuclear, same with China and India and Pakistan as well, it is a question of political will and large scale infrastructure investment.

- well, you are advocating for economic stagnation, coupled with inflation it is known as stagflation. Stagflation, that's when you are laid off and your money is worth less every day as well, so you can buy less and you cannot even earn new money, this is how you use less and less energy per person per day. This is how you turn industrialized world into 3rd world, the problem is that while the industrialized world actually can gather the capital and knowledge and materials and plans and organization necessary to implement real solutions that actually work, like nuclear power, while the 3rd world countries only increase their reliance on burning coal, wood, heavy oils and such. Your plan is a failure before it even starts.

the poster you are replying to is not a detractor, he is a terrorist sympathizer, which is clear from his antisemitic sentiment.

So the pragmatist in you says: a nuclear power can take anything it wants and kill as many people as it likes, that is your message. OK, but this is a weakness, the weak get eaten. Iran and Hamas don't have nukes yet, still look at the message the POTUS has sent to the world by telling Israel to stand down (and I am seriously hoping Israel will tell him to pound sand and will carry on destroying Hamas and Gaza), the message is - we are so weak, even our alies cannot rely on us, so do whatever you want, terrorists, insane religious leaders, whoever.

This is how you get slaughtered.

Yes, I am proposing we build thousands of new nuclear power plants around the world, it's exactly what I am proposing. I am proposing we allow people to do this without huge red tape that is normally preventing such projects from starting in the first place, for sure if we start working on it now, then within 5-7 years we would actually start making a dent in the 50 Billion ton of CO2 production related to electrical energy and heat generation. What exactly are you proposing, what is it that we can do at all to *replace* coal and gas and oil in energy and heat production? There is nothing, no solar, wind, hydro, thermal or anything else that we can do that will come near what nuclear can do.

- I am certain that if we don't start now, then 5 years from now it will be the same problem as today, only much bigger and another 5 years to build nuclear power plants.

Just like what is happening with the ruzzian war on Ukraine and the ineptitude by the Western countries to do anything on time, waiting for years before beginning to do anything significant at all, the problem is just much bigger and simply shifted forward into the future.

Ok, so we can start using more nuclear power and shut down coal and oil and gas power plants and this would reduce our yearly CO2 production by maybe 15%, which is significant given 50 Gigaton CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere yearly or we can spin the wheels on all these pointless carbon credits and pretend that we are doing something.

A car manufacturer can fit this https://www.amazon.ca/Portable... AM radio into the car's glove compartment or its trunk or a seat pocket, this should be sufficient, no?

BS, bull shit, there is no such thing as a 'human right' to any good, service, attention of any kind, including education, medical care, housing, food.

A human right is a protection against government (people in power) destroying you, taking your property away, taking your freedom and life away from you, that's what rights are.

As to privileges, such as health care, old age insurance, education, whatever, all of those things have to be provided and you are the one responsible for it.

The word corruption, the only thing it means is - tax payers money is stolen by people with access to it. In the private sector this is known as theft. Corruption exists because governments exist and governments take our money and then it is used for personal gain of people with access to it.

All the things FTC gets its hands into are not corruption (they often become corruption once FTC gets involved).

FTC shouldn't exist in the first place, all of the things the Federal government does to hinder business is illegal, it should be the Federal government that receives letters from everyone, telling it to go to hell, not the other way around.