Corporations are organizational models employed by humans in pursuit of human motivations. They are not entities unto themselves. Everything is humans, all the way down.
I'd also like a pony.
Corporations are organizational models employed by humans in pursuit of human motivations. They are not entities unto themselves. Everything is humans, all the way down.
I'd also like a pony.
Maybe we already know everything about the dataset. For example, if it's line-of-business customer data gradually built up by a sales team, then the brains of the salespeople have likely already done all the "implicit classification" needed to generate good questions about the dataset.
And this is, by far, the usual scenario for Business Intelligence questions: someone with "business-domain knowledge", e.g. an executive, has formed an intuitional hypothesis about the data based on their personal experience; and so they ask someone with "data-domain knowledge", e.g. a business analyst or data scientist, to test that hypothesis.
It's actually rare, in my experience, to have a tabular-data dataset that someone is motivated to understand, that doesn't also "come with" a set of people who can already act as (good!) models trained on that dataset, to aid them in that understanding. (Sometimes these people can't find each-other — but they do usually exist.)
AFAIK, having reams of entirely opaque and ill-understood tabular data, such that you need classification/clustering to get started on asking questions, only really happens in the sciences: sensor-network climate data; longitudinal-study medical-outcome data; census data; housing-market data; etc. In other words, it's almost always universities and governments — not businesses — that care about analyzing opaque tabular data.
And that's a key to understanding the constraints in play for choosing models! Because business-driven analyses are usually time-constrained in some way (potentially even needing post-training question-answers to be generated in soft-realtime); while institutional analyses usually aren't. Big difference!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...
They can change that though (if there's a material cost impact to them of this). They could just say from next year that you're capped at N journeys per month or something, where N is a very large number for anyone other than someone trying to live on trains.
"How dare this fucker weasel his way out of giving me 50% of his income! That's MY money!"
Such a small group of leaders extracting maximum value for themselves at both the cost of the company, greater economy, AND the US Taxpayer sounds, I don't know... criminal?
No data. No facts. Clickbait topic that reinforces HN preconceived biases.
The fact that no-code tools are recommended so heavily should indicate that it is useful for at least some use cases.
As someone who runs a low code dev shop (I have a low/high mix of frameworks), I've already started reflecting on my BAD behaviour. I will repent and jettison all of my cruds, and web forms, and other dumb little things that provide so much value to my clients.
What do you think of that?
I genuinely wish you the absolute best of luck getting a consistent client base.
Oh I think the EU can rule whatever they want on their domestic market. Apple can try to find all the holes they want, the Commission is probably just taking notes of those holes to fix them in the DMA 1.1
I really think Apple (and Meta, fwiw) is making a huge mistake if they think they are in position to negociate anything. DMA is here to fix competition issues on the european market and if the goal isnt reached, there will be enough iterations until achievement.
It's not a fight again Apple, it's about preserving the core of what is the EU : the European Single Market. The European Single Market was created after WWII with the goal to enforce peace on the european continent. The Single Market IS the European Union. There is no way they'll let Apple get around this. The only thing Apple don't understand is that the EU is traditionally really slow to act so they had an entire decade (and more) to think that locking access to the market in the EU was fine.
It is funny to see American companies scream "that's not fair" when faced with a functional government.