At least he’s wearing the red flag on the outside.
One of the reasons women will find this repugnant is because they didn’t normalize their tables. Should be
boyfriend_id is null.For that matter, why is waist size a Boolean?
They allowed business logic to pollute the DB table, and “small waist” is a defined range in some confluence doc somewhere.
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.
Most SQL Dbs use bits, so it would be
WHERE field = 1The entire shirt caused me 4d6 psychological damage.
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.
Shouldn’t boyfriend be a reference to another table?
BF has no referential integrity
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.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
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. 🤣
Should be
age > (my_age / 2) +7Why would there be an age and my_age column on the table GIRLS?
Good point.
Should be
age > (@my_age / 2) +7FTFOP - 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_agefrom that table too.Thank you. I assumed the reader would be educated enough to guess I meant a variable. But yeah, should used @my_age
Pretty sure “People who know enough about SQL to know about variables” is a subset of “People who know enough about SQL to be pedantic about it” :p
Guy with a belly asks for girl with a small waist. The half-assed ugly shirt will do it.
Instant woman repellant.
I feel confident in assuming the guy who would wear this shirt seeking “girls” between the ages of 18 and 26 is himself no younger than 45.
I can already imagine a 40-something year old manager coming into work wearing this
