Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ruw1090's commentslogin

No tax on tips does not apply to payroll taxes (FICA).


The Xenomorph term wasn't created by the fandom. It was first used in-universe in "Aliens".


But it’s based on a misunderstanding. Xenomorph just means “alien”— it wouldn’t make any sense for that to be the term for that specific alien, because their existence isn’t common knowledge.


I agree with this--if I understand you correctly.

In "Aliens", when Hudson (or was it Hicks?) asks, "is this another bug hunt?" the lieutenant says, (paraphrasing) "there may be a xenomorph involved".

I interpret this to mean that

(a) The marines have previously fought alien creatures of some kind (and they had no problem dealing with them).

(b) They used the term "xenomorph" to mean any alien creature--not specifically the titular alien, which they had never before encountered.

So I agree. Calling it "the Xenomorph" is a misunderstanding. At best it's like calling something "the Beast", or calling all ships of a certain size "dreadnoughts".


The Marines also referenced sexual relations with "Arcturians" which might be human colonists or sentient aliens.

I really like your point about the Marines having fought/hunted/exterminated other "bugs". It casts their bravado in a different light. Even after seeing catastrophic damage from "acid for blood", the Marines are still very confident, which after beating other alien species, makes perfect sense. It's only when they get into the nest do they start getting scared.


I love the scene where the marines go in for the first time. They start out well-disciplined, well-trained badass marines, but things start to go wrong one by one. First, they have to put away their rifles (too close to the fusion reactor), then they see movement on the motion-detector but can't see anything ("Maybe they don't show up in infrared"). Once Apone gets killed, the entire unit falls apart. They come out shell-shocked and demoralized.

It's a great scene.


It's just an adjective. It would literally be like calling your aliens "humanoids". It describes a shape, literally "alien-shaped", probably because all the other animal-shape adjectives were inadequate.


It doesn't just mean "alien". It's a portmanteau or blend word. Only the xeno part means alien. The morph part describes its growth process.


It isn't a portmanteau, it's a classic Greek word construction (an ordinary expression of classic Greek morphology). "Morph" generally just means "shape" as a Greek root so "xenomorph" is more accurately "alien-shaped". Which gets back to it being a very generic term said in a fancy way (like "we don't even know if it is an alien, we just know it is alien-shaped"), like much technical and scientific jargon will do when it goes to constructing Greek words to describe something ("gynomorph" => "woman-shaped"; to call to a different sci-fi horror Species).


Citation?



Sure, but given multiple opportunities (every time the clip gets brought up) to condemn it, he hasn’t. This should tell you enough.


Close, but in database years it was actually already in its mid life crisis.


The snowflake clusters are several factors bigger (and more expensive) than almost all of the comparison points.


Do you have any benchmark results with Clickhouse in a clustered configuration (and other db's)? Is Clickhouse expected to be run in only single node deployments?


ClickHouse is typically run on a cluster. There are setups with over 1000 machines and over 100 PB of data.

But for this benchmark, the most simple setup is selected. I can add clustered setup for ClickHouse in this benchmark.


Yea, Redshift looks like it was run on an ra3.xl (4 cores) and is comparing against clickhouse on a c6a.4xl (16 cores). I suspect if this were normalized Redshift would have an edge.


Redshift configuration was selected to get 16 cores in total, so it is 4 nodes of ra3.xplus 4vCPU to get 16vCPU in total.

https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickBench/tree/main/redshift

We can add more results on different configurations easily.

There is also Redshift Serverless, which does not have any hardware configuration to tune.


That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. I got confused by the UI.


I've also rerun the benchmark on 4x ra3.4xlarge (48 cores in total) and added it to the comparison.


There's a lot more involved in an execution engine running complex queries that are not single table group by than just QO (though this is important). It includes things like join implementations and associated optimizations, shuffle performance (which is important even for single table queries as you scale), etc.


The total estimated cost has increased by 44 Billion. Only ~10 billion has been spent on the project so far.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: