I'm super stoked, this is going to be a lot of fun

I'm going to put it on my CV and everything. That makes it an official conference.

This has been on my mind since it was announced, I'll be sure to get as involved as I can. I like the format too. I'm doing relevant research that won't be ready for the conference this time around, how might I get involved next time? What's the vibe here?

I think this puts it pretty well: Can we behave like idiots? We expect everyone to conduct themselves like the professionals you are. Also: be curious and constructive rather than cynical and dismissive, stay on topic and avoid digressions that are likely to start fights.

Knowing Jamie, he's always just been about sharing good ideas and talking about databases, so that's what I'm here for

how might I get involved next time?

I have no idea 😄

I'm not 100% sure that there will be a next time, or if there is that it will be the same thing. I'm trying to cross-pollinate between groups that have similar ideas but are unlikely to run into each other, and I'll likely experiment with different ways of doing that.

I didn't do as good a job as I was hoping of getting speakers from very different groups. Eg I had no luck finding anyone from fossil, or q, or from the weird bank-internal-software worlds.

I might have exhausted most of the contacts I have too, which would make it hard to run a repeat next year.

What kinds of research communities are you hoping to attract? I may have some connections

Some projects on my todo list that I didn't get around to or didn't get a reply from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p65Yt20pw0g

https://calpaterson.com/bank-python.html

https://shakti.com/ / https://code.kx.com/q/learn/

https://www.fossil-scm.org/

https://tiddlywiki.com/

https://engineering.fb.com/2020/03/02/data-infrastructure/messenger/

https://matrix.org/docs/guides/implementing-stateres

Mostly I just needed to put more work into cold emailing people. I had a big lull in Dec/Jan.

So many great speakers I am so pumped and I very happy my diary is clear for the next 3 weeks so I can concentrate on the video! I think a month to shoot a video is, in general, a bit short. I wanted to start earlier but then I did not know if would be accepted so here we are.

sidenote: I also have not ever been successful in guessing the acronym, I think the b is a problem :p

Huh, maybe I should have made the deadline for proposals finish earlier then.

Re: future event, I have a friend working on attempting to untangle NOAA Grib2 (https://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/grib2/grib2_doc/) who I think has a similar outside perspective a la bank python

Tom Larkworthy Yeah, but without the B I wouldn't be able to read it as "Hyper Traditional, Boi!"

The attribute declarations that say "any number of" made me nervous; maybe it's obvious for people who know older versions of the project, but it would help to explain how to specify that, e.g. there are actually exactly two players (what happens when you try to add a third player to a game?).

When you started talking about the "'beats' relation", I was fully expecting a general system for relations, not just attributes.

It took me a while to figure out how the rule for winning RPS was commutative; that might be worth explaining immediately (in future versions, I guess, I'm sure this was enough work to make without trying to do weird edits). I feel like there were a couple other places where I wasn't sure how the system was going to resolve apparent underspecification.

I'm tempted to suggest that "scenario" is a more evocative term than "model" for people who don't care about formal logic.

That's very valuable, Andrew, thanks. The opacity of "model" is a problem. Part of the reason I didn't call them 'scenarios', is because the word 'scenario' is typically used in legal training in the context of 'fact scenario', which in comp-sci terms is more analogous to "inputs" than it is to models, which are more of an output... but your point is well-taken. "Stable model" is not a particularly useful term, and we can do better.

Technically, they are relations, and not attributes, which is probably why my vocabulary slipped, there.

A previous version of the tool allowed you to be explicit about cardinality, but the current implementation doesn't have that feature, yet, so the only attribute declaration available is the "any number of". Previous versions indeed.

It took me a while to figure out how the rule for winning RPS was commutative

I'm not sure what this means, exactly. It's not commutative, I don't think. I expect that if the semantics were a little fuzzy, that's fine. That can be motivation for someone to read the documentation (when it catches up). But I'd be interested to know what you mean, exactly.

I guess I assumed that Player1 and Player2 were in some sense fixed prior to the rule about winning being evaluated, and there was no rule that specified how Player2 could win. I was thinking you were going to add another rule about how if Player2's throw beats Player1's, etc, but instead you just declared it done. :)

Oh, I see! Yes, it's logic programming, so they are logical variables, which are unified. When you run the query, it checks bob/bob, bob/jane, jane/bob, and jane/jane to see if any of them work. (To be honest, it also checks "rock/scissors", etc.). That's something that is covered in the beginner's documentation, but not in the video.