Damn this sucks. Snowflake bought crunchydata right? I know they largely did that because they wanted to push crunchydata's datalake extension past some sort of proverbial finish line as they've been competing with databricks for features, but snowflakes pressers about commitment to open source and postgres in general (which are ofc something no one should take that seriously) feel even more sad when it blows out the floor underneath projects like this which are undoubtedly part of the same postgres extension ecosystem. Snowflake went after crunchydata for that _one_ extension while neglecting the broader world that crunchydata was keeping alive. They can champion support OSS and postgres all they want but they hurt the ecosystem here, kind of a slap in the face to the postgres world.
replyThank you for adding this here.
replydeleted
replyThat text is right there in the link, we don't need to read it twice.
reply>"we don't need to read it" [here]
replymany people here don't read the articles, and that's not going to change. (on today's internet, jumping from the site you want to be on to a site with unknown UX patterns is fraught)
but people here do read the comments, so having important details from the articles in comments here improves the quality of comments here, at least if you value staying on topic.
I think mostly the point is that it inadvertently implies that the message adds something new. A note that the same thing was posted on LinkedIn would help the ones tho did read the linked content know right away it's the same. I managed to just move on, but I did had a knee-jerk moment of "what if I'm missing something?" - I suppose for some people it's more difficult.
replyWhy would somebody click a link to GitHub and then not read the text that very obviously pertains to the title of the submission they clicked on?
replyAlso saying that GitHub has unknown UX patterns made me lol.
>fraught
replydumb "journalists" especially have this backwards mindset.
Why did you read it twice if you didn't need to? Seems unnecessary. I only read it once and just ignored it on subsequent encounters.
replyTrying to find what context was on LinkedIn but not in the posted link. Spoiler alert, there was none.
reply