Thanks for clarifying my poorly worded description, that’s exactly what I meant. Like in the example given, the difference is 10-4=6, let’s call this the naive_greedy_miss_factor. Can we choose three other denominations so that NGMF is > 6?
I wouldn't trust a taxi driver's predictions about the future of economics and society, why would I trust some database developer's? Actually, I take that back. I might trust the taxi driver.
The point is that you don't have to "trust" me, you need to argue with me, we need to discuss about the future. This way, we can form ideas that we can use to understand if a given politician or the other will be right, when we will be called to vote. We can also form stronger ideas to try to influence other people that right now have a vague understanding of what AI is and what it could be. We will be the ones that will vote and choose our future.
Life is too short to have philosophical debates with every self promoting dev. I'd rather chat about C style but that would hurt your feelings. Man I miss the days of why the lucky stiff, he was actually cool.
Sorry boss, I'm just tired of the debate itself. It assumes a certain level of optimism, while I'm skeptical that meaningfully productive applications of LLMs etc. will be found once hype settles, let alone ones that will reshape society like agriculture or the steam engine did.
Whether it is a taxi driver or a developer, when someone starts from flawed premises, I can either engage and debate or tune out and politely humor them. When the flawed premises are deeply ingrained political beliefs it is often better to simply say, "Okay buddy. If you say so..."
We've been over the topic of AI employment doom several times on this site. At this point it isn't a debate. It is simply the restating of these first principles.
You shouldn't care about the "who" at all. You should see their arguments. If taxi driver doesn't know anything real, it should be plain obvious and you can state it easily with arguments rather than attacking the background of the person. Actually, your comment is one of the most common logical flaws (Ad Hominem), combining even multiple at the same time.
What you're really saying is that the database presented in OP is not useful because it only handles DQL.
1. SQL can be thought of as being composed of several smaller lanuages: DDL, DQL, DML, DCL.
2. columnq-cli is only a CLI to a query engine, not a database. As such, it only supports DQL by design.
3. I have the impression that outside of data engineering/DBA, people are rarely taught the distinction between OLTP and OLAP workloads [1]. The latter often utilizes immutable data structures (e.g. columnar storage with column compression), or provides limited DML support, see e.g. the limitations of the DELETE statement in ClickHouse [2], or the list of supported DML statements in Amazon Athena [3]. My point -- as much as this tool is useless for transactional workloads, it is perfectly capable of some analytical workloads.
I'm curious why do you think of DAX as a virtue. My poor SQL-shaped peg brain has never really fit the DAX hole of MS software.
Also, it always struck me as something too complex for the non-technical folks, and not expressive enough for tech-literate analysts/data engineers &c.
Just options. VBA is there as well. Excel's virtue is not specializing in any specific task, but being versatile enough to express a multitude of business solutions. 'Excel is my database' wasn't always a punchline.
That's more than an equally domain specific process like Qlik, and more than a specific vendor tool like tableau. And anyway if PowerBI didn't have a pain point it wouldn't be a MS product.
There isn't really a lineage between that and contemporary capitalist culture IMO.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udarnik
reply