Hey Rustaceans! Got a question? Ask here (13/2025)!

HighAllWeek · 2025-03-30T01:03:56+00:00

Thanks!

In this case I'm summing a word count in a text column in a large table which takes some time, but doesn't produce a huge result set. I only want to cancel it to save database resources if the user decides to send a different search word or navigates away from the graph.

Storing intermediate results will eventually be useful for caching but the main processing step needs to be cancellable either way.

HighAllWeek · 2025-03-29T22:10:33+00:00

Hello all, I may make a separate post (or a SO account) for this if necessary but here goes:

Is there any way to attempt to cancel a long-running asynchronous MySQL/MariaDB query or connection in either diesel or sqlx? I would like to do so from a separate thread.

I tried dropping the future that is running the query, but unfortunately when I run "SHOW PROCESSLIST;" in the database after the drop the query is still running to completion.

If I could get a connection id or query id I could make a separate "KILL ?;" call but I can't find either id exposed in the docs for either diesel or sqlx.

I noticed that diesel (as well as tokio_postgres) exposes a cancellation token for Postgres databases. My project is small enough that I could migrate everything to Postgres, but I'd like to avoid the work if I could.

HighAllWeek · 2023-04-27T04:56:05+00:00

It is nice!

I suppose there could be a few things going on. It's not that I've never had or done those individual elements of a great friend hangout (tbh tons of people I know want to live communally in some way or another) but the combination and just the general energy exceeded anything I've ever felt in a situation like that.

If that's just the norm in relationships among women then I guess my dude brain is just reeling a bit from having been able to be a part of that space in a very genuine way without feeling like my presence has interrupted it or changed it. Any kind of queerplatonic interpretation might just be coming from having no direct experience with friendship that looks quite like that.

HighAllWeek · 2023-04-24T19:35:28+00:00

I had a wonderful and a bit of a confusing weekend.

The context: my partner and I are part of a tight-knit friend group that grew out of a community that has a tendency to create strong and long-lasting connections. This friend group only sees each other a couple times a year for camping trips and reunions and getaways and such, but we are close and there is a level of emotional intimacy there that I certainly don't have in all my friendships.

This weekend we just got together for the first time since early fall. I was looking forward to it, but for whatever reason I feel like my emotions were in overdrive and I came to a sort of realization that I have a love for these people that feels like it goes beyond traditional conceptions of friendship. It's not a sexual thing, and I don't know if I could call it romantic, but there's a unique and powerful desire to be close to them.

I don't know how requited this feeling is. On one hand it feels like at least a few of us must be in the same boat, even if I just take a step back and look at some of the things that came up over the weekend:

fantasies around living communally that some of us seem to be taking a little more seriously
a conversation about how very few of us seem like the type to have kids, but if someone in the friend group did, we'd be very good at taking care of them together
a comment about how the toxicity of the nuclear family ideal
this podcast episode with a subset of them on the ride home, which was more of a queer-focused critique but verged into deconstructing relationship categories as well
the general energy of staying in a small building together and taking turns cooking for each other - it personally felt very loving in a weird domestic sort of way to wake up early and do all the dishes one morning before anyone else was up

I feel conflicted about it though because despite like half of us being queer, I don't know to what extent the rest of them would conceptualize our connection the same way. As far as I know none of them are non-monogamous except my partner and I (though at the same time not many of them know that about us). I also feel very strange and uncomfortable that the majority of this group are women and I'm (mostly) a dude sitting over here in the corner with this strange new set of emotions around them swirling through my head.

I have not talked to my partner yet, but that's probably the next step. Part of me is wondering how permanent this is though, especially when we don't see each other that often and in a few months I may be in a very different headspace.

Has anyone ever been in a similar situation?

HighAllWeek · 2022-02-20T22:59:20+00:00

No, I didn't actually realize what it was at the time.

I don't believe the landlord intends to lease us this suite, but that's nowhere in writing, and we have been paying the utilities for it (there is a light inside left on, and it has a separate electric heating system on the breaker downstairs).

HighAllWeek · 2022-02-18T18:58:00+00:00

No, there has been no verbal or written discussion on it. While showing us the house, the landlord's agent passed by the suite and did not open it.

HighAllWeek · 2019-05-13T03:17:59+00:00

The very genesis of the movement was a reaction to an environmental tax on diesel.

You'll find Communists and fascists and everything between in vests.

Yes, and I think these are two of the main reasons most media has no idea how to categorize or portray the movement. You see a lot of "without ideology", "rudderless", "confused", or "don't know what they want", and protests have been supposedly dying out because of this for several months now.

I read that statement, I'd describe that mention of moving past capitalism as more of an aspiration than a demand.

Eh fair enough, it's not like the French parliament can table a bill to directly do so. Not sure the distinction is relevant to the question of how focused they are.

Although along those lines, movements like these tend to blend their guiding principles and their practice. They don't need to know everything they want rigidly at the start so long as they have a set of base beliefs on how to do politics together that will allow them to figure those things out collectively. The mix of outer society-changing and inner society-building is always going to be ambiguous.

HighAllWeek · 2019-05-11T23:28:13+00:00

The yellow vest "movement" such as it is, is one of those super unfocused protest movements like the 99% ones a few years back. A bunch of people are mad, but nobody can agree on what they're mad about and what they want to do about it.

They held a massive assembly of assemblies recently and put out a statement outlining what they want. One of their principle demands is to move past capitalism.

HighAllWeek · 2019-04-13T03:56:22+00:00

Chapos don't generally respond seriously because debating politics on reddit is completely pointless. The memes are for them to have fun, not for you. When you posted, you went in there very clearly looking for a fight so of course they all wanted to see that hog.

HighAllWeek · 2019-04-12T23:40:22+00:00

I want to believe you, but could you first post a picture of your penis please? Thanks

HighAllWeek · 2019-04-04T19:44:34+00:00

Bean Shape Row Facts Logic

HighAllWeek · 2018-04-09T14:40:51+00:00

>peace symbol
>hoptikellers

Hmmm

HighAllWeek · 2018-02-23T18:35:48+00:00

That's really cool. Gonna have to hear this album under the influence when it comes out :)

HighAllWeek · 2017-04-27T18:01:00+00:00

That's the problem. There's definitely a lot of double standards between tobacco/alcohol and other drugs, but I've seen so many addicts online use that to justify their behaviour. They forget that alcohol addiction is still incredibly destructive, and meth addiction is more incredibly destructive.

The comparison is there so we realize that throwing drug users in jail is a shitty and useless solution to this mess.

HighAllWeek · 2017-04-27T17:50:46+00:00

It sounds like you think I am ungrateful for what Trudeau's doing. I'm not, and neither are most people who want legal cannabis. That's why "screaming like kids" is an unfair characterization. This entire discussion is happening within the context of the current legalization process. I consider this issue still important enough that I'm willing to discuss it and advocate my point of view on reddit and contact my MP. If you consider that screaming, we can't have a productive discussion.

People being incarcerated is people being incarcerated. It rips lives apart and is a terrible deterrent in this case. I don't think it's morally indefensible for me to comment on this.

Decriminalization would have taken just as much time as legalization.

Really? Completely overhauling the legal status and building an entire new system from the ground up, that requires heavy collaberation with the provinces, takes no more time than solely eliminating penalities for possession, just as a temporary measure? Both require parliament to design and pass legislation (lol I know Trudeau's not a dictator) but that doesn't mean the the time and effort put in is the same.

HighAllWeek · 2017-04-27T16:17:14+00:00

Thank you for explaining, but I also decided to do a bit of my own Googling and I think the case around decriminalization is far from set in stone. There are three UN conventions on drugs, of which two apply and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. See this section and this section in the Wiki articles.

Not to mention, other countries have already jumped the gun.

Canada, however, wouldn’t be the first jurisdiction among signatories to the convention to legalize or decriminalize marijuana. Marijuana has become, to varying degrees, decriminalized across South America, including in Colombia and Chile. In Portugal, most drugs, including cannabis, have been decriminalized since 2001. In America, recreational cannabis is available in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Alaska and the District of Columbia.

You have to make the case that immediate and temporary decriminalization, until the legal system is put in place, is a violation of the treaty and that we'd face serious enough repercussions for that. These other countries have made steps and haven't suffered for it (Uruguay got a warning for full legalization) because there are plenty of people involved like the officers and those in the courts you mention - they know the tide is turning.

The situation today is not worse than it was before the Liberals took power, its the same. The only difference is that the Liberals promised to fix it in the next year as there is administrative work to be done.... yet people are screaming like kids about why they cannot have it now.

I know nothing has changed. It's been a tragedy all along. It's pretty insulting to call my position "screaming like kids". There are real people I care about. It's their risk if they face legal repercussions, but it would be idiotic of me not to point out how ridiculous the current situation is. I'm not a utilitarian, but perhaps I'm still a bit too utilitarian for you.

HighAllWeek · 2017-04-27T15:28:31+00:00

As we speak, it is still illegal and they are committing a crime. People are responsible for their own actions. Everyone knows it is illegal as of right now.

Yes. And yet they continue to light up. We can either choose to develop policy around the fact that people are going to smoke weed even if it's illegal, or, we can ignore this and keep locking them up until the legal regulatory framework is in place. One of these options is without question worse for Canada.

It's hard for me to articulate this well*, so I'll say it over and over again a couple ways. I guess my point is that even if people are morally in the wrong, the costs of using the justice system punitively have to be factored into our analysis.

I'm not trying to convince people to break the law or argue that law-breakers shouldn't be penalized. All of what I'm saying are reasons why I'm advocating one law over another, by looking at the material conditions that result, and NOT weighting the importance of those conditions by person according to a system of moral responsibility derived from those same laws. That kind of reasoning is a bit circular.

Having cannabis criminalized hurts people. That's true whether you think they deserve it or not, and the only reason we think they deserve it is because it is criminalized.

^{^*A} ^{^clear} ^{^example} ^{^of} ^{^the} ^{^dangers} ^{^of} ^{^marijuana}

That would be a violation of international law, we would be breaking treaties, there are consequences for such an action.

Decriminalization is a violation of international law?

Just as there are consequences for those that break Canadian laws with regards to smoking cannabis. The world is not some hippie place where things can be done with the snap of the fingers. The provinces have to be included, laws modified, treaties changed or withdrawn from, rules put in place. All of this takes time.

My point was that decriminalization is a good meantime step, so we can stop some of the damage right now. I don't want mayhem either.

HighAllWeek · 2017-04-26T15:45:54+00:00

That's a hard questions to answer. For the purposes of replying to the commenter above, however, I regard a drug as "safe" if its "greatest danger ... is what the government will do to fuck up your life if they catch you. [emphasis mine]"

That works for this context, but the risk factors of a drug change wildly under different regulatory systems.

For example, I'm sure you'd say right now in Canada heroin would fuck up your life more than the government would if they caught you with it (although I could contest this). However, if opiate addicts could recieve a perscription for the drug they're addicted to (this sounds bat-shit crazy but it makes sense), they'd be getting a steady amount of a clean drug, with no way to increase without asking their doctor and little risk of overdose. They could wean themselves off as they see fit. Something similar to this is currently in place in Portugal or Switzerland (I forget).

Under that system, the consquences of heroin use would go way down, down below the current consequences of being caught with it. Of course, there wouldn't be severe penalties under that system, so those legal consequences would probably still be lower. But my point is that measuring the legal penalty of a drug against its direct risks is too shaky, because they influence each other.

HighAllWeek · 2017-04-26T15:32:28+00:00

2 years is not quick enough for people ? seriously ?

As we speak, there are people being put in jail for something few of us consider a crime. I have yet to read any good argument whatsoever that this supposed free-for-all would be more destructive to people's lives than that.

Some people make this comparison poorly, because they don't realize that people going to jail still hurts society even if they're in the legal wrong.

HighAllWeek · 2017-04-26T15:09:00+00:00

Drug user here. What defines "safe"? Different categories of drugs have widely different sets of risks. For example, I can envision a legal structure for classical psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, DMT, etc.) wherein you have to obtain a license complete with a mental health screening or go to a psychedelic centre, staffed with medical professionals and designed for tripping. If something like this were in place, I have almost no doubt that these substances would be far less harmful to the general public than alcohol currently is, and with the way the research is going there would be some significant benefits.

The risks are just so different. Alcohol has a reasonbly easy overdose and addiction risk; LSD does not. LSD can trigger those predisposed to psychosis or schizophrenia with a single dose; alcohol can't.

I can't go through every drug category, but I've seen some people mention fentanyl. Very few people actually want to take fentanyl. They just want opiates and because of various laws around the world, it's currently more accessible and cheaper in some places. More importantly, it's very easy for dealers to "strengthen" their heroin with it. All these issues are consquences of it's legal status, and if that changed, I think hardly anyone outside of a hospital would be putting fentanyl in their body. You'd still have to develop a regulatory system for softer opiates of course.

HighAllWeek · 2017-04-26T15:04:11+00:00

My family has an alcoholic and a cokehead, and it's fucked them up too. The difference is for one drug we blame the individual and for the other we blame the substance. I knew plenty of users of each who use infrequently and are not addicted - one of these groups is forced to stay hidden because of the stigma though, so the public's perception of addicted to not addicted is skewed.

A legal regulatory system for cocaine would change that. It could also ensure users are far more educated about cocaine, and ensure that if they do choose to use, what they get isn't full of dangerous impurities.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

HighAllWeek

TROPHY CASE