My understanding is that the whole history of basketball is explained by the fact that they won't make the court bigger and the nets higher to account for the fact that the players are seven feet tall now.
Yeah there’s a pretty clear distinction between the NBA (and even college somewhat) from before Steph Curry and after. It’s been as revolutionary as the addition of the line in the first place and the shot clock.
This is a point of hubris I see among SWEs very frequently, for some reason. People like to think they could make a better system, one that's black and white. The truth is the use of judgement and context is essential to a good legal system.
Seems like a great pair. Especially the bit about static analysis instead of using string parsing.
Frankly, the dbt product hasn't really evolved much. I've been a bit disappointed with its lack of evolution toward this stuff organically. The "modern data stack" is in kind of in a magic position where they are working at very technical companies but the people using it are not SWEs who can build out the tooling themselves so they are just getting buckets of money without a really big value proposition. My team self hosts a dbt core workflow and it's been almost trivial to build out dbt's paid product ourselves
I guess if they integrate this then that will be the case, I'm not sure I'm convinced that much stuff is going on in dbt cloud that I can't do in dbt core.
A comparison that's obvious to my team is the release cadence of Metabase, which we also self-host. The frequent rollout of new features in Metabase is great and gives me more confidence in the product. But I'm not in the position to decide whether to cough up the $ for the paid version so I suppose it's moot.
The beautiful thing about essays like this is that they show you that the author has truly never known what he was talking about. Just a guy who stumbled through life at the right time. It’s a shame these people have so much power and influence. It could be wielded by people much more thoughtful and benevolent.
Graham was brilliant in the 90s. I would say this article is more like evidence that he's washed up. When you no longer have to work hard because your name alone means money, your mind turns soft.
I completely agree. There's something really jarring about watching videos from this time, where things were just more candid in a way that's hard to describe. I only clicked through a few videos and I was smiling from ear to ear. People dancing in a club, a guy riding a homemade little dirtbike in the countryside, babies playing and kids riding bikes. They feel like home videos. It's beautiful.
Do you expect that a year from now (or two, or however long you think is a fair amount of time to pass), online reviews will be noticeably better/more useful than they are today? I think the underlying thread here is that most people don't expect this to be any more effective than anti-spam or anti-robocalling calling rules.
And by the by, I get significantly less spam and phone calls than I used to. Vastly fewer and they're all clearly scams now, which makes it easy to ignore.
I'm all for consumer protection, but I don't think this is in any way good policy or a good use of time. It's too granular and companies acting in bad faith will obviously continue. That's IF it's enforced and not challenged and thrown out by the fifth circuit or something.
