The commercialization of the engines of culture continues.

The real problem is twofold. One is that EDS had historically been a diagnosis of exclusion, and a lot of the diagnostic tests were difficult. The second is that the disorders overwhelmingly affect women, and women tend to get ignored about chronic pain and fatigue.

Imperative SQL is the procedural elements that mostly do not exist at the standard level. Variables, control flow, and cursors.

  printf("Hello world!");

Anyone who claims that an SQL command like insert a row, create a table or destroy a table is not imperative, is just plainly wrong.

Even in real life, when humans communicate commands to each other, from where the term "imperative" comes, the commands normally do not tell anything to the recipient about how to accomplish the order, they just name the action, because it is supposed that whoever receives the command knows how to do it.

After programming languages were invented there was a clear partition between commands a.k.a. imperative statements, expressions and definitions a.k.a. declarations ("definition" and "declaration" were originally synonymous terms, "declaration" being the ALGOL 60 term and "definition" being the CPL term; the use of the 2 words with different meanings, like in C, where it is required by a defect of the compiler, which needs additional declarations besides a definition, is only recent.)

Later the meanings of these terms have become muddled by their careless use by many authors, which usually had political reasons, i.e. because they somehow considered the words "imperative" or "command" as shameful, they attempted to present their pet languages as purely functional or purely declarative, so they twisted the words in various ways, despite the fact that any practical program must contain imperative parts, not only functional or declarative parts.

No. That's more to do with imperative vs functional programming, which is a subset of declarative, but even then you can't simply say "I changed state so it's imperative." That's a drastic oversimplification. That's like saying Haskell can't write to a file, which is plainly false. Declarative (functional) can absolutely change the state of the system. It just doesn't let you do it except by calling fixed commands, which is exactly what `INSERT` is.

When we're talking about imperative vs declarative, state can still be manipulated in both, but it's abstracted away with declarative programming. Like, a `filter()` or a `map()` transform in JavaScript is declarative programming, even in an otherwise imperative language. That's why it returns a new object with an updated state.

What you're really talking about is one of the things Codd wanted to emphasize: representational independence. Which actually was the primary thrust of his famous paper: the user should not need to know how the data is stored in order to use or manipulate it.

The other thing that people are talking about with "declarative" is probably another level up in abstraction. Talking about the business logic or problem in terms that are closer to logic than a sequence of instructions, and then letting the machine sort out what those steps are.

Consider in a Datalog users don't customarily perform DDL type operations; they declare data rules and the system decides the form of the underlying relations. That's a small step up the declarative ladder from SQL, even if it's somewhat analogous to "create view".

So I think there's a blurry definitional line between the two. But I don't think your very blunt "No." is doing much to help clear that up?

I always thought this was splitting hairs.

C#,C++, Java seems imperative. You are in control? But you aren't really telling it how to move values between registers, the compiler is making a million decisions for you on how the computer will execute that 'imperative' code. Just like SQL isn't really telling the DB how to do it either..

Contrast that if I create a class/object/field structure/hierarchy in Java, or put a HashMap somewhere with a certain set of keys, I've written something in stone which requires significant refactoring if the data needs to be accessed from a different direction.

Compilers are free to rearrange these accesses if the final result is same as if executed by these ordered microtransactions.

Consider loop fusion, loop splitting and/or loop skewing.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States or its constitution or government exists. The First Amendment merely explicitly states that the government isn't permitted to impede that right.

Using the existence of the First Amendment to narrow free speech as a right to what the government is permitted to do and nothing else is a severe perversion of both the document and the beliefs of the framers.

In short, "it's a private entity doing it" is an incredibly poor defense of behavior that suppresses speech. It's like how young children will defend their rude or offensive behavior with "it's not illegal." The reason that's an unconvincing argument is that it's an incredibly low bar. The world is full of behaviors that may not be so universally offensive or outrageous that people have explicitly written down that nobody is every allowed to do that thing. It's actually a very small range of possible behaviors that that covers.

The only reason that there isn't a general law barring private parties from restricting the speech of others is (a) one's right to free speech does not necessarily negate another's rights in the same or a different area, (b) one's rights do not entitle one to the use of things owned by others against their desires, and (c) any such law could be used by the government to indirectly suppress other rights.

The narrow nature of the First Amendment is not to be taken as an implication that the right is narrow. It's an admission that the law cannot perfectly protect human rights.

And there are other human rights besides the right to free speech, which have to be balanced. One of them is the right to safe travel. That means people who are responsible for the safety of a planeload of people have to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry. And mature adults are suppposed to recognize that fact and not insist on exercising their free speech right everywhere they go, to the detriment of other rights.

  > One of them is the right to safe travel.

Threats in airplanes, post 9/11, land different. “Free D.C., Fuck Americans” says something different to fellow passengers than “Free D.C.”.

Not crazy, not bonkers. Yes, a threat. And in an airline context: they are all treated as credible… that’s why your shoes get checked, and water gets stopped, and babies banana smoothies get confiscated because of potassium content.

Plus, there’s a red line from the PLO and hijackings through 9/11 to the current state of airline security. That’s not neutral, and not incidental, for an airline that knows recent history.

  > that’s why your shoes get checked

Seriously, your chances of getting killed in a plane based terrorist attack is approximately zero. I know 9/11 happened and other attacks, but there's a fuck ton of flights that happen every single day.

Let's put it this way, I don't fear stepping outside my door and getting mauled by a bear. I'd also call anyone that is crazy. And the odds of that happening are >10000x more likely to happen than being subject to a terrorist attack.

Your fear is irrational

The founders believed in private property rights as much as free speech. Property was even a requirement for voting in most states.

This explains why Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty happily destroyed private property in the Boston Tea Party.

Anyway, airlines are hard because the basic problem is they’re public necessity still halfway regarded as private business. It’s also an unnatural situation that many people be forced to share such little space in “public”, and we’d likely have a different constitution were it always the case.

I don’t think this one will be addressed by principle from on high.

And Great Leader recently asked social media sites to provide details of critics.

The ship has sailed. The plane has crashed. The party is over.

There may be survivors, but right now it's too early to tell.

DBeaver requires Java, supports more RDBMSs, supports plug-ins, supports ER diagrams, but is also a project split into a community/enterprise model so some features are just never going to be implemented or improved upon without you paying an annual fee.

HeidiSQL is written in Delphi, supports the major RDBMSs (except Oracle), and is more focused on being a query analyzer than anything else. There is no edition split or paid model, so you're more likely to see new features in the free edition.

IMX, HeidiSQL is faster. It loads quickly and performs better, though I will say that my experience with both is about 10 years old at this point. From my memory, the DBeaver interface has always felt clunky in that way unique to Java applications, and many of the features in DBeaver are things I never wanted or needed. At the time, HeidiSQL was Windows-exclusive, with Linux support only about a year or two old at this point. My opinion 10 years back was that I would use HeidiSQL when I could and DBeaver if I had to.