Is it for versions of the database design or versions of the data?

Both. Schema changes are versioned like everything else. But depending on what the change is, it might make merges difficult.

(I haven’t used it; I just read the blog.)

BTW. I wish all databases versioned their schema and kept full history. This should be a standard feature.

keep history just as a changelog to see when and what was changed? or something with versions you actively can revert to? I suppose one of the problems is that changing schema is usually interleaved with some sorts of data migrations and conversion and those I have no idea how to track without using some general scripting language, like migrations in many frameworks which are already there.

Just storing a changelog would be very useful. I could for example compare db version some app was developed for with current state. Most companies will store schema migrations in git, but doing anything with this information is difficult. Having this in db would make automated checks easier.

Normally you would use a creaser, which is like a dull knife that is pressed down into the paper, perhaps over a slightly giving surface.

For work I use a Mac and I remote into Windows, and I have so much trouble making my brain swap the keys for copy/paste. Ctrl-C Command-V is so painful.

How about in your lair?

That's a pretty breathless article. It specifically mentions Google but never compares it to Google Earth. Only Microsoft can do it, except it's already been done.

I am not a touch typist, far from it, but I have been typing for so long that I too couldn't tell you how much I look at the keyboard. For awhile I almost convinced myself that I had somehow stopped looking down because I never seemed to notice it. But I definitely still look at every key I type.

Management could have been aware of more personal details that coworkers should not know. I don't think it is necessarily a black mark against the company without knowing the whole story.

Management could also communicate to concerns coworkers that the absences are excused. They could also work with the employee to notify teammates in an appropriate way.

Just allowing employees to disappear with no notice or trace is an environment where I won’t want to work.

There are obviously situations where I have to not be at work suddenly (eg, medical emergency where I don’t want to share details) but I can just send a text to a boss or corworker and have them do the rest.

If HR said they didn’t want to act to not hurt feelings that seems like there was no additional info, unless they thought that was a proper way to protect medical info (it isn’t).

Sounds like a bad place to work and seems like a negative factor for companies wanting to do well or me awesome.

You can never be to certain what other people are dealing with outside of work. Sometimes, management knows things that they are not at liberty to share.

Exactly. There are a vast number of incapacitating health related reasons that could cause a person to be absent, e.g. panic attacks, stuck in a bathroom (IBS/IBD/Chron’s), migraines, depression. The type of thing that reasonably wouldn’t be broadcasted out to the entire team.

I think it’s better to just assume nothing unless you have direct knowledge that the employee is doing something blatantly unethical like working at another job (has happened before).

A good way to define metropolitan areas is by commuter patterns. If a certain percentage of residents of a county or town all commute to the same adjoining larger town, then that gets counted.

The article is credited "by Georgia Institute of Technology", so it is a press release. This is just early research, but presumably the problems of toxicity are what inspired the study in the first place. But, they can't make any claims yet, because lawyers. And cost would be a huge factor, unless regulation were involved. There is a potential public good in reducing toxins in the environment. But what about their idea of using it for framing lumber? Nobody uses pressure treated for framing today, do they? It would help insulate, they say, but there's no way that would make any sense unless the cost were much lower than today's treated lumber, which... well it's just an early research project.

The thing about toxins in treated lumber, it isn't a bug in the product. It is actually the feature. Treated lumber is just as porous and traps water like any other lumber. It has so much copper compounds trapped in it that almost nothing can ever break it down. If you bury treated lumber in the ground you will find it sterilizes a small layer of soil around it. This is why it is so effective.

Anything trying to reduce the toxicity of treated lumber by swapping on a coating runs into the same problem as traditional methods like painting the lumber: a single tiny hole in the coating allows the entire piece of lumber to be compromised.

The traditional TLDs, especially .com, are immediately recognizable as www addresses. If you write some_name.com somewhere, just about anyone would know that they could type that into a browser. But some_name.club would not have that effect.