• MercuryGenisus@lemmy.world
    2232·
    6 months ago

    I would reject this pull request. Why is the indenting all over the place? Why is your keyword capitalisation all over the place? WHY YELLOW?!

    Edit: the more I look at this the more it pisses me off. Wtf is going on with your kerning? Just random number and placement of spaces. Also, why is the table name in caps? Who does that? Select * is lazy. Do you really need every field about a girl? Really? Worst of all, not a limited request. I sware this is just the kind of thing that would return 30 million rows and brick the database for twenty seconds.

    • somnuz@lemm.ee
      53·
      6 months ago

      You are now a Certified Rejector. Stay sharp, keep the wheel rolling.

    • Black616Angel@discuss.tchncs.de
      15·
      6 months ago

      You forgot some: Why is there no space after SELECT?

      Why are boyfriend and smallwaist not questions like is_cute and is_crazy? Either all boils are with a verb or none.

      Also why is smallwaist not in snake case? It should be small_waist (or better yet has_small_waist or even better waist = “small”)

      Also also boyfriend should be null not false, this would solve multiple issues.

      And finally the only positive thing is the * itself, because selecting only body would be even worse. 🤣

        • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
          8·
          6 months ago

          That’s (part of) why it should be a separate table to map the relation “Relationship”. People can have more than one (polyamory, infidelity), and you could track fields like the start, end, status (e.g. flirting, dating, committed, engaged, married, ended) in there.

    • mark
      41·
      6 months ago

      Yesssss, bro 😀

  • coffinwood@discuss.tchncs.de
    1841·
    6 months ago

    Guy with a belly asks for girl with a small waist. The half-assed ugly shirt will do it.

    Instant woman repellant.

  • barsquid@lemmy.world
    1292·
    6 months ago

    One of the reasons women will find this repugnant is because they didn’t normalize their tables. Should be boyfriend_id is null.

    • JackbyDevEnglish
      261·
      6 months ago

      Why is there a separate table for men and women in the first place? Shouldn’t there be a person table with a many to many relationship with itself (because polyamory exists)?

      • ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.mlEnglish
        9·
        6 months ago

        To that point a person table with a relationship table. So this way you can reference relationship between two or more persons within the relationship table and that could be joined to the person table if needed. I don’t think you’d really be able to keep it within one table while exploring multiple relationships unless you’re storing a list of ids that is interpreted outside of sql. Also a relationship table would allow exploring other types of relationships such as exes, love interests, coworkers, family, friends, etc

        • Thomrade@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          6 months ago

          Yeah it’d be a person table, and the relationship table indicating the ids of shipped couples. Do you think there’d need to be a status in the relationship table so we can tombstone exes? Or maybe started and ended date columns for each relationship so we can figure out whose cheating on who. But when about on-off relationships then? How would we model Ross and Rachel?

          • ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            I think wed just need the following

            • rel.id (primary key)
            • rel.user_id (foreign key to person.id)
            • rel.user_id2 (foreign key to person.id)
            • rel.type (type of relationship)
            • rel.start (non null)
            • rel.end

            From there you don’t need a rel.status because you’re not updating this rel.id entry except for the rel.end. if they started dating again later it would be a whole new entry, and then you could query their entire dating history to see if they keep coming back to the same person, dating around, playing the field, etc. Separately there could be a friendship relationship that is tracked so you could if they ended being friends after a breakup.

        • JackbyDevEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          To that point a person table with a relationship table. […] I don’t think you’d really be able to keep it within one table while exploring multiple relationships unless you’re storing a list of ids that is interpreted outside of sql.

          Yeah, that’s how many to many relationships work. Especially if you care at all about normalization which I assume we do since we’re debating the best way to model a SQL joke on a tee shirt lol. I thought this might be common knowledge but I’ve included a few links in case you’re curious. Many-to-many relationships

          Also, a table having a many-to-many relationship with itself isn’t terribly special. It’s just not necessarily the most common thing ever. We can even express love triangles (as in unrequited love) using this approach. Proper couples could have two entries but unrequited ones would only have one entry on the junction table.

          Also a relationship table would allow exploring other types of relationships such as exes, love interests, coworkers, family, friends, etc

          Yes! Absolutely! You could have a column that describes the type of the relationship. Having extra information on junction tables.

    • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
      10·
      6 months ago

      Or, if you allow for polyamory and non-hetero relationships, you probably need a rel table (and some joins in the query).

      Maybe GIRLS is just a view…

    • rwhitisissle@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      6 months ago

      Maybe it’s supposed to imply that boyfriend is an attribute of the particular girl. Like saying she isn’t someone’s boyfriend. It’s probably a holdover from the original data architecture and nobody ever bothered to modify the table later on in case there’s a select somewhere that expects that field to exist.

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      42·
      6 months ago

      That structure doesn’t handle polyamorous and cheating relationships very well. It should probably have and (select top 1 1 from dbo.relationships r where r.partner_a != GIRLS.id or r.partner_b != GIRLS.id) which would handle also LGBT+ relationships or relationships that are better represented as a graph.

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        21·
        6 months ago

        The relationships table should also have enum for relationship type. It might be friends, family, platonic relations etc. Also might want to check sex_drive to handle ace gals and something to do with kinsey scale not to bother lesbians.

  • simple@lemm.ee
    551·
    6 months ago

    I can already imagine a 40-something year old manager coming into work wearing this

  • RobertoOberto@sh.itjust.works
    441·
    6 months ago

    Who says programmers don’t have a sense of humor?

    No one. It’s just what you pretend people say to make yourself feel like some kind of special exception.

    • JackbyDevEnglish
      21·
      6 months ago

      Why would there be an age and my_age column on the table GIRLS?

      • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
        161·
        6 months ago

        Good point.

        Should be age > (@my_age / 2) +7

        FTFOP - now my age is some value defined outside the immediate query.

        More likely, the GIRLS would be a view of some table persons and you could query my_age from that table too.

        • JackbyDevEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          Ah, but if we care at all about normalization and that’s calculatable from the other columns (it should be) then it shouldn’t be a column. Unless it’s expensive and this is a view, of course.

      • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        6 months ago

        Uh, no no. The rule is “half my age plus seven”. I’ve no idea what your other term is supposed to represent.

        • ji17br@lemmy.ml
          8·
          6 months ago

          He’s saying it goes both ways. The upper limit is a women who you would be half her age plus 7.

          • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nzEnglish
            21·
            6 months ago

            This “rule” only works for a small set of ages from 14 ~ 30ish

            If you are 14 then the range for “age” is 14 - 14
            If you are 30 then the range for “age” is 22 - 46
            If you are 40 then the range for “age” is 27 - 66

            At 30 the upper level is 16 years different; while it could work it is a big gap to bridge. It only gets worse the older you get.

  • Zink
    36·
    6 months ago

    and smallwaist = true

    and itty_bitty_waist = true

    and round_thing_in_your_face = true

  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    323·
    6 months ago

    Gonna sound racist but deal with it.

    I constantly meet asian developers (Singapore , India, China, etc) with this edgelord personality. They come to American conferences and meetups, say some wild sexist shit, and someone has to politely let them know not to.

    Some backtrack. Some apologize. Some literally freeze up and pretend like it didn’t happen.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      22·
      6 months ago

      We do still live in a bubble in the west. We’re fighting for equity across genders and race, while some parts of the world are still questioning if sexual harassment against women at work is really that big of a deal.

    • Drew@sopuli.xyzOP
      141·
      6 months ago

      Many of my guy coworkers have been (and are) sort of misogynistic, and homophobic (I’m in India). It makes me really uncomfortable. Might start reporting people to HR one day.

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        11·
        6 months ago

        Just get to know HR first. They might be mysogynists themselves (even if they are female).

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      62·
      6 months ago

      That last part is a face saving culture reaction. If you’re feeling culturally sensitive the thing to do is just move on and see if they do it again.

  • CryptoKitten@sh.itjust.works
    232·
    6 months ago

    This is not funny and any man wearing this would probably not pass a similar test using any woman’s criteria. If I saw someone wearing this my first thought would certainly not be “hey this is a guy with a great sense of humor and I would like to hang with him!”.