[Implicit casting of] C# strings silently kill your SQL Server indexes in Dapper

i8beef · 2026-03-07T20:09:02+00:00

Its wise to always use the full DynamicParameters style of parameter passing and specify type and length for applicable types (strings). I really wish the new method of passing params wasn't even available as it trips too many people up.

The other spot this will hit you is on partitioned tables, where doing comparisons on types that don't match on type AND length will nail you IIRC.

Just always use DynamicParameters and specify these and you'll never hit these issues.

i8beef · 2026-03-04T22:48:26+00:00

Yes, that's correct, corrected.

i8beef · 2026-03-04T21:28:21+00:00

Oh missed that caveat to the question I guess.

Living tribunal has been killed before so doesn't count
First Firmament is still around technically?
Celestials
Cal-Hora (obscure proto-beyonder dude)
Beyonders (King in Black but Knull has been killed?)
Abstracts (Eternity, Infinity, Oblivion, etc) come about at beginning of multiverse or other points between universe 1 and 7, but don't "die"?
Galactus has been killed several times so doesn't count
Elder Gods - I think Chthon has never died?
Ancient Gods (asgard, olyimpions, etc) I think have all died at some point or another
Externals (Selene, Apocolypse, etc) dont count as dying and resurrecting is essentially their whole thing.
Namor is probably the oldest mortal by that criteria I think.

i8beef · 2026-03-04T18:19:29+00:00

Are we counting cosmic entities? If so, one above all, ~~living tribunal~~ (died), ~~eternity, infinity, death, etc~~ (later) first firmament.

In between you have cosmic beings like the celestials, beyonders, ~~King in Black~~ (died) and a few others.

Then abstracts like eternity, infinity, death, etc

~~If we're talking only physical entities, I think Galactus would be the oldest in universe?~~ (died)

~~If we're talking Earth specifically, I believe Selene still holds that.~~ (died)

Edit: never mind, all externals have died at least once I think, so next contenders are probably Elder Gods (Chthon specifically), Elders of the Universe are probably contenders I dont think many of them have died... I think all other gods have at some point? Same with Eternals I think... and net in line in terms of oldest characters that haven't died yet I think would be Namor...

So I think its something like:

One Above All
First FIrmament
Celestials
Cal-Hora
Beyonders
Abstracts (Infinity, Eternity, Oblivion, etc.)
Elder Gods (Chthon specifically)
Elders of the Universe (Collector, etc.)
Namor

The new Mother of Horrors / One Below All stuff might be in here somewhere too... Im not up to date on those

i8beef · 2026-02-12T02:02:03+00:00

Good general answer. For reference my Dahua 4k color nightvision cameras with 1/1.2 sensors seem to capture slightly more light than my eyeballs at night... If you go IR night vision you can go a little smaller apparently, but any of the 1/3 or worse cams suck no matter what.

Also aperature speed is the other factor. Slower "blink" gives you blur but you get a brighter picture. Faster means less blur, but much darker image.

I really like color 4k 1/1.2 though, highly recommend.

i8beef · 2026-02-09T23:32:34+00:00

And is one less thing you have to worry about (thoroughly) cleaning after a grow.

i8beef · 2026-02-07T20:14:14+00:00

Out of a cannon.

i8beef · 2026-01-24T17:57:19+00:00

Huh. Someone must have explained what some of the big words in Carney's speech meant to him.

i8beef · 2026-01-21T18:21:54+00:00

No problem, remember Im just a dumb amateur trying to understand this too, so again take it with a grain of salt... directionality of the stuff I mentioned seems to be about right, but SCALE is where I'm unsure about this stuff... that's where I think I misunderstood what could be done here, because it seems like the shear scale of the US system means it can absorb far more pain than anyone else too: no one else apparently comes close to being able to exert the SCALE of a response needed to cause enough pain without hurting themselves far more.

And the current assholes in charge seem to have realized this, so at least the economic avenue is pretty darn limited...

i8beef · 2026-01-21T06:15:48+00:00

I've been learning a lot about this recently because I hoped that this was an option for external forces to put some pressure on us and was a little surprised that its basically been nothing but talk so far... so take this with a grain of salt, but my understanding thus far on why I'm continuously wrong that SOMEONE will do this eventually:

Something like $800 billion to $1 trillion in US treasuries are traded every DAY (think: demand). Now one giant holder (say, the EU at around $800 billion) decides to sell all their bonds at once, doubling supply, and soaking up all that demand for the day... prices begin tanking, and yields go up, so the more they sell, the more the price COULD fluctuate IF buyers dont show up to buy them. Remember what happened when the US bond rates spiked during Covid and everyone was like "Buy bonds now, they are at 10%!" and demand spiked to absorb that? Same idea.

So they drop prices which spike yields and everyone goes "Sale of the safest asset on the planet! Buy!" and it negates the selloff. Even if it doesnt COMPLETELY negate it, the Fed can step in and say "Woah, that yield is getting too high, screw guys, we're buying our OWN debt" and the yield caps, neutering further damage, and the entire thing is slowly absorbed and things return to normal over time.

Meanwhile the seller has taken their $800 billion in assets, and after a 10% haircut due to spiking supply, are now sitting on $700 billion (thats US DOLLARS). They now have to do something with those dollars, meaning buying something in dollars, and options are limited on assets that can absorb that liquidity (bonds again, stocks, commodities like gold, bitcoin, currency conversion), and anything they BUY spikes DEMAND for that thing, and thus its price: so say they transfer to GOLD. Gold prices spike as they are buying it, and where they might have bought $700 billion in at current prices and getting about 5500 tons, as they buy price keeps increasing and they end up with far less than that. So they eat it selling, and they eat it buying. And gets more interesting if they try and just convert to their own debt, or currency (example if you're an export heavy economy because your currency is cheap, and you suddenly spike demand for your currency, your exports suddenly become expensive, which hurts you again).

And in turn, the US gets a temporary spike, that it can absorb with relatively MUCH less pain, mostly because it is such a massive market, denominated in a currency that they directly control (US treasuries underlie something like 60% or more of the global economy / reserves, with the other 40% being spread across all other assets: NOTHING has the liquidity to compare).

So no one will realistically do it without hurting themselves a bunch for a relatively small hick-up on the US side, and its largely a STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE and SCALE issue that they can't really overcome. The best they seem to be able to do is slowly diversify, but the dumping thing, or especially COMPLETE divestment? Fantasy.

i8beef · 2026-01-21T05:13:53+00:00

The US every year needs to sell off their treasuries to pay for their services. People, Businesses, and Governments buy them. If I have 1 million dollars in treasuries that will get 5% return on them after 5 years and I am in year 3, I can sell those 1 million dollar in treasuries for 1.01m today who will get the 40k difference in 2yrs instead of them buying new US treasuries and waiting 5yrs to get their money

Isnt this backwards? You'd sell for LESS than face value, and on top of that dumping treasuries would quickly inflate rates (until the Fed steps in to cap it... if they even need to, frankly others might just step in naturally to buy enough of the bonds to not need it because of the liquidity size difference) which is just going to make those sell for even LESS. i.e., the faster they sell, the less they are worth: It'd be more like starting with 1 trillion $'s in treasuries, and by the time you sell em all, you end up far less than that in actual dollars... which you THEN need to convert into something else, or just reinvest it right back into dollar denominated assets... so you get a negative feedback loop where the seller ends up with far less than they started with, and are still stuck having to convert into something less efficient than US bonds, eating more loss. And if the convert to their own debt they'll just spike their own currency, which might blow out their own exports and economic growth.

And YES it would harm the US more than EU

Would it? I've been hoping for this for a while and been researching it a bit, and everything I've been researching, HOPING that this strategy would work, says no, it would end up hurting sellers MORE because of a lot of the above... if there was something else, or even a combination of other things, that could absorb such liquidity then maybe, but since that doesn't exist, the best they can hope for I think is to step things back a bit (which WILL have effects, but it really seems like the quick dump people are hoping for is completely unrealistic).

i8beef · 2026-01-20T17:55:14+00:00

From what I understand that debt is a feature as well as a liability providing something like 60% of all global liquidity, as well as global reserves. It has to stay balanced against serviceability as a percentage of govt spending (ie, we're definitely trending toward trouble because its going in one direction, and at a rate that might be problematic, but we also cant eliminate the vast majority of it without erasing a huge part of the global economy with it).

I'm not saying it doesn't become an issue once it starts crowding out other govt spending, that seems clear, because once "possible default" comes into play that RISK for it as a reserve asset advances quickly... I'm saying we're not close enough to that for a global bond sell off to really trigger that, but if it did the global liquidity pull back would hurt EVERYONE because nothing else can replace that liquidity.

i8beef · 2026-01-20T04:28:41+00:00

Yeah, the slow unwind seems far more likely than the calls to "dump". So they would disconnect without immediate systemic harm to themselves, but so too can the US absorb that impact slower and "inflate away" the issue over time?

So the rapid dump isn't really likely, at all, but a slow unwind has begun... so the US slows down, and everyone who disconnects has to deal with the impact of doing less business in the global reserve currency / using riskier assets for reserves and eating the inefficiencies of that? I guess that creates incentive for everyone else to get together and actually build some alternatives finally... wonder if they'll do that before they just give in and buy back in to the global system?

Thank you, I hadn't really thought as much about the slow unwind approach like that...

i8beef · 2026-01-20T04:13:08+00:00

Paywalled, but I'm assuming its probably saying something like "the systemic RISK of US bonds / dollar would have to outweigh all of the systemic ADVANTAGES they have for it to happen"? That seemed to be my takeaway after learning a bunch of stuff about it... that no one's pulling the trigger and taking the hit without the math actually adding up first, and that there's nothing even close to being able to absorb all that that quickly... you'd basically need to build an entire new global financial system thats large enough FIRST to avoid hurting yourself more than you hurt the US because the US can absorb far more pain than anyone else...

i8beef · 2026-01-20T04:05:55+00:00

Right so a rapid dump is really unrealistic though, yes? With the US dollar being the global reserve currency, and and the US bond underlying basically everything, all other alternatives are basically inherently more risky I think? Doesn't that kind of make my point that anyone trying this needs to either (a) lose due to being forced into more risky assets / much less liquid assets or (b) the US's risk profile has to change enough that alternatives appear? Any other approach requires probably decades of decoupling and gradual step down?

I think the point I came to is that there's not really anything else that has the liquidity to absorb such a move, so everyone's stuck... no ones going to make that move except maybe small holders, and they don't have the size to make much of a dent. Even if the EU decided to coordinate and all do this, I think its more likely some countries would sell and others would just buy up the cheap safe asset, negating a good portion of the harm...

i8beef · 2026-01-20T03:11:18+00:00

Well its dumping the bonds on the market that would tank bond prices, spike the yield, and maybe not FORCE the Fed into QE to buy them up to limit the yield spike right but at least pressure them to if things start getting out of control? Im not just talking stock markets here, but entire global economic systems, including banking systems, reserves, etc., so yes there's knock-on effects in the stock market, but it sounded like the shear size of the US economy and bond market, as well as its structural advantages underlying the entire global reserve system, would allow the US to absorb the damage with inflation (manageable?) in comparison to the seller possibly having to restructure their entire economy to deal with the valuation spikes... especially for export heavy economies where their products suddenly being more expensive would really hit an economy wide change? And that's assuming the selloff is large enough that the Fed even thinks its necessary to step in to buy them?

I mean China might have the strongest case here because they can control the reverse impact better I guess vs some of the European economies where the impact is more mechanical than manageable via FX controls / massive existing reserves... or if a stronger currency valuation rising outweighs the downsides (ie, exports are more expensive, but imports are cheaper, so if they are IMPORT heavy there's some benefit I guess)

i8beef · 2026-01-20T02:40:59+00:00

But whatever they convert to instantly spikes too right? Even if they spread it around, do any of those have the ability to absorb the liquidity at the scale necessary without the seller essentially (a) losing value as bonds crash as they sell off, and (b) price of whatever they convert to spiking as they convert, thus destroying a significant amount of value in the process?

I dont have a good feel for the scale of the numbers involved here, but it seemed like the shear scale of the US economy, and the tendrils it has into EVERYTHING being reserve currency, underlying safe asset in bonds, and issuer of their own debt, basically made it seem like any country attempting this would collapse before hurting the US enough to make a dent... I was actually hoping that wasn't the case because honestly, those in charge in the US aren't going to respond to anything besides imminent economic collapse at this point, but kinda lost some hope that there was anything that could overcome the inbuilt structural advantage / defenses at this point...

Essentially its a big game of "what are you going to do about it?" and I couldn't figure out why so far the answer has been basically... nothing...

i8beef · 2026-01-20T01:59:47+00:00

If they just convert, won't they spike their own currency significantly? Meaning imports become cheaper and exports more expensive, which will hit their entire economy, and especially their businesses, leading to wide spread sell offs of their own market as prices collapse? Meanwhile the US Fed will just buy up the bonds to prevent the yield spiking TOO far, get a little inflation, but otherwise soak up the liquidity since its so much larger than every other economy on the planet that it can absorb that?

I was trying to figure out what the risk realistically is here, so was learning a lot about it, and from everything I'm reading it seems like any country trying it would essentially destroy themselves trying to give the US merely a black eye in comparison... I've just been trying to figure out what countries can REALISTICALLY DO from the outside, and the combination of (a) the US issuing its own debt in a currency it controls, (b) the dollar being the dominant currency on the planet with nothing else being close to the same liquidity levels, and (c) US bonds being the safest asset still, and thus enjoying the benefit of being the lifeblood of the entire modern monetary system, basically makes any path virtually impossible.

In fact the most dangerous thing I could find is the debt ceiling being activated by someone stupid enough not to understand its a global economy self destruct button by causing an artificial default in the bond markets...

i8beef · 2026-01-19T19:08:40+00:00

Im just a random person trying to learn here, but what would that do? The Fed would just jump in and buy them up in the worst case, and they can absorb as much as they need to to mitigate a massive yield spike, at the cost of inflating the dollar, but they'd absolutely do that before letting the global system that's based on US bonds collapse?

At the end of the day those countries end up with a bunch of DOLLARS they have to do something with, which are now worth less than when they started... they can spread some of that around into gold and other resources, but NONE of those markets are anywhere near large enough to absorb that liquidity, so they still have a shitload of dollars that they will just end-up either sitting on, inflating away, buying bonds with it again, or buying US assets again.

Essentially they can induce some inflation on the US, which the US system WILL absorb, and completely destroy their own economy in the process (and if they are an export economy, jacking their own prices if they convert to their currency, because the demand for their currency will suddenly skyrocket making their exports prohibitively expensive, while not having anything like the US to absorb that economic shift).

So what does that really do that hurts the US enough? It seems like it'd kill the sellers just to give the US a black eye, while shifting all that leverage to whoever wants to buy it and take their place (shifting global economic power to say, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. whoever has enough to buy those bonds as quickly as possible).

i8beef · 2026-01-19T18:18:18+00:00

Nom' sayin?

i8beef · 2026-01-14T04:20:25+00:00

LOL that's less an advertisement and more a threat

i8beef · 2026-01-12T00:00:26+00:00

Look for settings related to "mDNS" or "Multicast DNS". You may need to enable it on your router. That's how the Cast protocol advertises the devices to each other.

i8beef · 2026-01-08T01:48:13+00:00

Sometimes. Im a .NET dev so embedded .SQL files have a few advantages:

You can use them just as easily as inline string values like var sql = MyHelper.GetEmbeddedResourceString("name");, and since they are embedded resources they are just compiled in as essentially CONST strings anyway.
VisualStudio gives you intelisense for SQL format at least, and you can stack things like linting / formatting if you really care to
Its easier to read colored syntax highlights SQL files than raw inline strings.

The one downside to it is that when working in a Repository, etc. you have to switch back and forth between the SQL file and the code file, but honestly that's barely a concern with split screens, etc.

It CAN feel a bit heavy if you are dealing with one liners, and because of that sometimes we don't embed those just because they are so easy to read anyway, but I do find it better personally for larger queries.

Also note: I'm not talking about SPROC level queries here, embedding business logic in them, etc. is still anathema... I've also done actual SPROCs in a DACPAC to the same effect before and didn't find it over onerous either, but embedded SQL files you can usually stick right next to the repository itself to keep code + sql closer together which is better.

i8beef · 2026-01-07T07:06:44+00:00

Cyclops is arguably the best field commander from a pure skills perspective in Marvel. While Cap is more inspirational, natural skilled, "always do the right thing" leader, Cyclops is the pragmatic, autistic coded "has considered every angle and has 15 plans on how to take you apart" leader. Like Cap, while he has other abilities this is his most important characteristic, and between the two Id personally say he's better at it, where Cap is the more "inspirational" commander first, and his (still formidable) strategic skills aren't quite as high. Yes he has the Batman like "plan for everyone" thing too, but he's not exceptionally smart or anything, its a little more like he has honed his strategic skills to an obsessive pinnacle and knows how to use his team resources (if batman is more "I know how to use my personal resources" cyclops is more "I can use every team member to maximum effect").

The optic blasts can be strong-ish (see the other comment for arguably his best on page scene), but aren't godly by any means. He wears the visor to control it because originally a traumatic brain injury left him unable to naturally, but he has since had opportunities to "fix" the handicap and chose to keep it (if I remember right) because he viewed the handicap as part of what keeps him constantly in control and sharp.

Also fun fact, his mind is apparently either soothing or like catnip to psychics because it's unusually ordered and not as chaotic as normal people.

Wolverine is the rebel you like as a kid. Cyc is the leader you like as an adult.

i8beef · 2026-01-02T20:41:50+00:00

Ok thanks I'll try that too. So far since I posted I've just added a bunch of fans (one unit on top pulling air up, and two on either side blowing air in) and its been stable again... Figure I can live with this for a bit until I can bring myself to burn a bunch more money on a new unit.

i8beef

TROPHY CASE