Update
It's not DNS
There's no way it's DNS
It was DNS
This issue has been remediated. We've manually updated our DNS records to make sure the image upload service resolves correctly. It's currently just pinned to a box and we are working with the vendor to make sure we have the appropriate e...
> It means Kwarteng is the second shortest-serving UK chancellor on record. The shortest serving chancellor, Iain Macleod, died of a heart attack 30 days after taking the job in 1970.
The documentation calls this out specifically:
FROM <table_source>
... snip ...
If the object being updated is the same as the object in the FROM clause and there is only one reference to the object in the FROM clause, an object alias may or may not be specified. If the object being updated appe...
You can have multiple references to the same table in the same scope, but all of them, bar one at most, must have an alias. In the top line UPDATE table the table being updated cannot be an aliased table unless there is only one reference to it.
@PaulWhite Highly unlikely, IMO. Tories are way down in the polls, so a large number of MPs would lose their seat. So why would they vote that way? Why not wait til the polls hopefully go back up?
Binding is basically done by object id, and CTEs don't have one of those
@Charlieface It might be highly unlikely. Many highly unlikely things have occurred in recent times, not all of them appearing to have a solid rational basis
> When a common table expression (CTE) is the target of an UPDATE statement, all references to the CTE in the statement must match. For example, if the CTE is assigned an alias in the FROM clause, the alias must be used for all other references to the CTE. Unambiguous CTE references are required because a CTE does not have an object ID, which SQL Server uses to recognize the implicit relationship between an object and its alias.
> Without this relationship, the query plan may produce unexpected join behavior and unintended query results.
@Charlieface Did someone say otherwise? Or a non sequitur?
It's quite easy to shoot yourself in the foot with UPDATE FROM and it doesn't warn you about ambiguous updates like MERGE does. But most sensible people don't write those sorts of queries. It's possible the drama around UPDATE FROM is overblown.
Doesn't stop people having very strong opinions about it ofc.
Someone, possibly Hugo, tried quite hard to get the syntax deprecated at one point.
@ypercubeáľá´š Interesting. I don't know man, it's weird... like that article he goes out of his way to say Hans is rude and mean and over the top... and then says Magnus was mad that Hans was so relaxed and calm the whole game... so Magnus shouldn't notice that Hans is acting 100% not like himself? I'm not saying Hans did or didn't cheat, I think it's interesting that lots of "little" things add up.
@JoshDarnell Thanks, Josh. It takes a few hours each day to go through the exercises, etc. The exercises themselves are quite short, but the persuasion to start and do them properly is a pain.
I thought some of those arguments were quite reasonable. Like saying the chess.com is the only arbiter of cheating. But I don't recall the other information
Yeah it's all over not great. That article Ypercube linked makes it sounds even worse coming from the dude himself, he's like "oh yeah they accused me of cheating so I made a false confession"
@Zikato I bet. Hell, it's often difficult to convince children to do things that they need to stay alive (eat, drink, sleep). Much less something that's challenging for them.
Ok, this vendor call is excruciating ("We use Mongo as a backend!") and it's getting close to winter so I'm a hobbit so I might be around here again more
@Lamak is there a video with that post mortem? I haven't seen it, only read about it.
@SeanGallardy that is weird, yes. But then, the whole chess.com procedure to catch cheaters is like "we checked and analyzed your games, we found indications of cheating, we ban your account. If you want to re-open it, confess and everything is confidential."
What can a player do in this case (assuming he didn't cheat.) Start a long and tedious law procedure to prove he is not an elephant? Go public?
I wouldn't confess to cheating but some people obviously thought it was a not the worst choice at that point.
of course. but they also choose to reenact the ban (on their online platform) a few days after Magnus made his half-accusation against Hans (for an over the board match) and when he went public about this second ban, they chose to make these old allegations (2 years) public and make new accusations public (I presume without contacting the accused in adavance)
I don't claim that Hans is or is not a cheater. But since these allegations were made public, half the chess world is convinced that he is a cheater and that he did cheat against Magnus
@ypercubeáľá´š Totally get it, it's hard (just my opinion) since both have a history (real or not) and it's hard to get rid of the past like that. I agree it doesn't mean he did or didn't cheat this time. If it's warranted to bring it up, then sure, I don't think they should have done it just because Magnus said something. Due diligence should be completed (and the report wasn't really... yeah) before actions taken.
On a trace, for a long-running statement (like a report for an SSRS query), the EventSequence is related to when the event got logged? But not necessarily the StartTime or the EndTime. Like the sequence number comes long after events that started at the same time and after events that ended later.
Update
It's not DNS
There's no way it's DNS
It was DNS
This issue has been remediated. We've manually updated our DNS records to make sure the image upload service resolves correctly. It's currently just pinned to a box and we are working with the vendor to make sure we have the appropriate e...
