The number of people that I see taking their bags into the supermarket would be <10%. Many people, like me, just pay the 15c/bag tax each time for (heavier plastic) bags that just end up in landfill anyway.
> The fact is, βBig Dataβ is dead; the simplicity and the ease of making sense of your data is a lot more important than size.
... after which they go saying
> Cloud data vendors are focused on performance of 100TB queries, which is not only irrelevant for the vast majority of users, but also distracts from the ability to deliver a great user experience.
... and then
> Distributed architectures were once necessary to process many analytics workloads. Thatβs why several of us built Google BigQuery - distributing queries to hundreds or thousands of machines was the only way to achieve adequate performance. This is no longer true.
Given that they lay their foundations around DuckDB, essentially a SQLite pandan but for analytical workloads, it remains to be seen what type of service and workloads MotherDuck aim to target with the platform (DuckDB) which I think is deliberately purposed for non-cloud computing type of things.
Is it discouraged here to title the submission based on a statement within the linked article rather than its actual title?
I ask in all seriousness-- I'm still kind of new to this site.
The point that I think is worth emphasizing is not their funding but rather their assertion / premise that "The fact is, βBig Dataβ is dead". Obviously an overstatement but the general point is: companies are being supported by reputable backers on the premise that Big Data is overhyped and other parts of the data eco-system are underdeveloped.
I considered giving it the same title as the article, and then just mentioning the "Big Data is dead" point in the first comment, but that seemed kind of roundabout and distracting to the point that I think is worth paying more attention to.
Happy to hear further suggestions given that background
Thank you, my bad. I thought I had read the guidelines but apparently missed that part. Apparently I can no longer change the title-- otherwise I would now-- but will to properly do so going forward.
Yes.. I certainly appreciate that the largest pasta company in the world which is owned by a small family of billionaires bringing in billions in revenue every year gained by monopolizing markets and buying out small competitors expects me to carry it's environmental water for them.
Not really because most often when working with APIs you figure out what you need then you disproportionately more time using it - UI is used for triggering short running operations - if the cost of finding it is high it's often higher than (not) using the tool. And often it's used to interact with rarely used or unknown features - UI clutter just leads to a mess - not discoverability.
You write software without looking at the screen? I doubt it.
GUIs have no other purpose than providing ways to interact with the software and communicating those controls via our eyes. Buttons are spread across the window because that turns out to be very efficient at both showing users what common features are available, and giving them a way to quickly use those features without having to dig through menus.
