Experienced “Unknown collation: utf8mb4_0900_ai_ci” when i was trying to import a database on a new server. Didn’t realize that the dump was created on a server with MySQL8 and i was trying to import it in MariaDB-10.5.
FYI – The “ai” in the collation name stands for “accent insensitive” and the “ci” stands for “case insensitive.
One of the solutions i stumbled upon, recommended i replace “utf8mb4_0900_ai_ci” with “utf8mb4_general_ci” and “CHARSET=utf8mb4” with “CHARSET=utf8“ and then re-run the import, but this didn’t work for me. After some more searching,
Upon some more searching, i found out this very useful answer:
In MariaDB use utf8mb4_unicode_520_ci instead, or you may even use uca1400_as_ci if you have a newer version of MariaDB.
Don’t use “_general_ci”, as it does not correctly sort or compare according to any version of Unicode and have been superseded decades ago.
When MySQL introduced utf8mb4_0900_ai_ci based on comparison and sorting rules in Unicode 9.0, MariaDB chose not to follow at the time. The new rules did not change much as Unicode’s sorting and comparison rules have been pretty stable for several generations of Unicode now. Choosing the “unicode_520_ci” rules will in almost all situations have the same result and this collation can be used in both MySQL and MariaDB.
MariaDB is currently introducing collation rules from Unicode 14.0 – called simply uca1400_as_ci (you don’t need the “utf8mb4_” part anymore). You can upgrade to these if you have a new version of MariaDB.
Make sure you use “utf8mb4” as the character encoding (and not “utf8mb3” or “utf8”, which represent the older flawed/deprecated implementation of UTF8).
So i ended up doing just one sed replace:
sed -i ‘s/utf8mb4_0900_ai_ci/utf8mb4_unicode_520_ci/g’ backup.sql
i have seen so many awful things. People doing awful things to other people and the way we usually think of things is moving forward – imprison, and punish people in whatever ways we deem fit.
i think the only effective way would be moving backward in time, unfolding that person’s life, and trying to pinpoint to the small things that made them who they are and that brought them to the moment when they did something terrible. i think there must be an event or series of events that led to this, and i’m sure that altering the series of events that built this spiral, would have a chance of awful things not occurring. i mean it would have to be someone very skilled at altering events properly, i mean, come to think of it, we’re talking about choices, someone made a choice for whatever reason to behave a certain way. It’s obviously not about “the right way” but about giving a person the opportunity and motivation to make the superior choice. There are always superior choices. Sometimes people give up, so maybe it would be nice if at that time when they’d need a reason not to give up, not to make a choice that is bad both for them as well as others, to receive a little mental boost and conviction, to do the thing that would benefit them most, regardless of the effort required. It’s evidently a rabbit hole of it’s own, and it would probably require many people going on many strands of time, sticking with a string of connected one-persons, it would require knowledge of free-will and ways of making adjustments without anything being owed to them, so that the people who’s lives have been altered don’t feel like they are under a leash of any sort, but fully independent, i think that could work.
It seems like a good book. It’s not perfect, and there’s flaws here and there, especially with the part of trying to make “a way” of doing things, because every time we try to covert others to “a way” of doing things, we deprive ourselves of the surprise of something new and maybe even better.
Not surprising, was the time of the writing, which places it around 4th century BC, which makes sense, because after reading it, a little debate came into the mind, seeing there are some similar statements here, as well as in the previous books i’ve reviewed, and i was wondering who copied who, but a logical thought comes in the form of … when parts of a certain philosophy have been taken and made into a less intelligent form, for the purpose of controlling fellow people, it could only have come after, and from little people.
Anyway, i say it’s not perfect, because there are flaws here and there and sometimes i just don’t agree with some of the ideas, like for instance the idea of “stop striving – in the absence of desire, there is peace” … i mean yeah that could work for someone interested in peace, but peace and serenity is not always what is needed.
Overall it seems like a good book, but my perspective shifts a little whenever someone is interested in someone else following because a true leader doesn’t need followers or anyone behind him. A true leader would always be the last one, looking to see if anyone got left behind. With that said, there’s still a bunch of good thoughts in it, and there seems to be more good than bad. i am sure that by now, if you’ve gone through other books, you’ve understood why we read them, and following is most definitely not one of the reasons, so you’ll be able to sift and pick whatever makes you stronger.
i know i keep saying it’s a good book, but another thought came to mind this morning, and i was thinking … alright … let’s go back to the basics – what does the book want? – the book talks about The Tao, which is a way, that wants to be followed, and everything seems fine till now, but let’s pause for a second and think of an endgame. Can you imagine how everything would look like if everyone followed The Tao ? i mean, if the way of being promoted is giving up control, desire, and doing nothing, then if everyone does that, then who is the one that does end up having control over everything? Because the things taught are about laws of attraction and the universe will provide and so on, so basically the followers should be the ones relinquishing control and independence for the hope that they would get what? Peace, serenity, tranquility, everyone singing happily in the meadows?
Let’s test some of this by doing a thought experiment, shall we? Let’s say that we’d be the universe right? And we see things static, doing nothing. Is there any incentive to provide anything to something that already is or do we work with the things in motion, things that want something? Do we fulfill the desires of those who don’t have any? Do we fix things that aren’t broken?
With this in mind, i think that although some of the things in the book are good, it’s still a book that seems like it was created with the intention to create a following, to lead people on a certain path, and to me, it doesn’t look like it’s a path of individual power and fulfillment, but of compliance, acceptance, and pacification. We all know that pacified people will not stand up, because they’ve been taught to accept their fate and that that is the natural way.
As i’ve established that one of the possibilities i see here is that The Tao is there to get everyone on the path relinquishing all their desires, so that it can move things as it wants and be the one in charge, then i guess the existence of the other books makes sense, because they had to be created in various forms, for various levels of intelligence. There had to be some “smarter” variations, while others had to be downright stupid, telling people exactly what they must do, in as simple words as possible.
