Daily reminder

SQL is the most kino thing to ever exist

Attached: bravo.jpg (126x126, 3K)

SQL doesn’t scale. Put it in Mongo. Mongo is much more tolerant, diverse and fluid with what kinds of data it reads and writes and how it does it. Get out of the past.

>Queries which you'll be crucified for if you use in production.
This whole meme of writing stupidly long/specific queries started because of MySQL which never had a query optimizer. It's the equivalent of writing code in assembly to get good performance, because the compiler blows.

The field isn't some jewish scheme to suck grant money, it deals with techniques for implementing optimizing query compilers so that you *DONT* have to write, or even understand complex IR languages used in there. You let the db frontend do that for you (in sane DBMs anyway). For instance, the OPs picture above is optimized to simpler and less complex form automatically if rest of the query implies that the full result isn't necessary.

Well, considering I've been a programmer for the past three years and I've got two degrees and about to get a Master's I think I'm competent enough.

> SQL doesn't scale

It does if you build it right. Where TF you getting that SQL doesn't scale?

You can't out-masters-degree incompetence either, especially if you feel the need to point out credentials.

Luckily for you, 90% of the bottom market is pretty much ok with incompetent monkeys as the commercial applications rarely are creative process. It's just building the same bridge over and over.

what metric are you using for competence? Are you just attempting to construct some metric in which you would be competent and dismissing all conventional standards? That seems like something idiots do to feel better about themselves.

Attached: 30740075_10213496609904471_4519270545694392320_n.jpg (280x323, 14K)

Code talks, bullshit walks. Peer approval. When other coders/scientists/otherSTEM say you're good, then you're good. If you yourself say you're good, and wave some meaningless paper, others are more like "good riddance".

>Are you just attempting to construct some metric in which you would be competent and dismissing all conventional standards?
No, I'm just pointing the obvious to socially stunted retards. Credentials can be somewhat useful in non-creative areas. Credentials certify that you've been *trained* at *performing*. It doesn't say much about how good you are as a creative asset.

Oh, so you're trying to use your arts degree as proof of your competence? Or the fact that you made something once? You don't think that science requires creativity because you know so little about it? It's a shame there's so many idiots out there who craft their own version of intelligence so they can rationalize why being a painter is patrician.

Contrary to what a lot of artfags and stemfags thing, CS and math is creative endeavor like any other. Most people, especially those who wave credentials are good at performing. The ones who are actually competent show no or even negative correlation. Good writers don't correlate with english degrees. Good programmers don't correlate with CS degrees. Half of the time they're drop outs because they weren't interested in getting trained mechanically at something they can grasp through immersion and natural talent.

What are you getting at here? You don't think institutionalized training is valuable? I'm pretty sure the whole of civilization disagrees with you. Those credentials exist for a reason.

>You don't think institutionalized training is valuable?
Of course trained monkeys are useful, see >Luckily for you, 90% of the bottom market is pretty much ok with incompetent monkeys
The thing is that monkeys are entire class lower. Monkeys aren't the ones writing tools, inventing novel tricks or operating systems or research papers (the only section of academia useful from the standpoint of merit). Monkeys cobble up webshit and paste SO answers. They are just power users which exists only because the market has need for em.

>I'm pretty sure the whole of civilization disagrees with you
Why? Civilization is predisposed on training drones, flynn effect is what makes it tick, but flynn effect doesn't really amplify genius as it deals only with the sub 120 range.

Monkeys are the maintainers, they're the ones reposting memes. But when a monkey claims that it can do OC, just because of school credentials, that shit is utterly hilarious, because it would imply massive numbers of monkeys would suddenly shit out OC, while in reality they don't. In reality you get banal IQ bell curve, which is centered somewhere at the white collar monkey spot of 110-115 in case of CS/math degrees.

Very interesting thing to hear.

How many novel things have you made?

515

I dunno why, but something tells me you're lying.

What compelled you to make this thread?

In terms of pure OC, probably some infosecfaggotry. There are ongoing attempts to make it systemized, but by the very nature of it makes it very hard to do past tooling 101. your 0day warez is inherently OC, and you can be taught to find new only to very limited extent because most of it is intuitive understanding ("critical thinking") of what mistakes monkeys are prone to make.

Most people are monkeys in general sense, but sometimes you get a very narrow specialization spot where you can do some OC. Good teachers typically entice pupils to look for that spot, because every monkey might have at least some shed of potential somewhere.

Unfortunately what you get in CS instead is knuth 101 rote (if lucky), stuff anyone actually interested in computers would more or less understand by age 15. And then off you go, shipped off to javascript sweatshop. Such monkeys are hopeless because they're a decade late in a highly ageist field.