Readit NewsThere are however lots of time-series that do change in Finance, e.g. valuations, estimates, alt-data (an obvious one is weather predictions). The time-travel feature can being super useful outside of external data changing as well, as an audit-log, and as a way to see how your all-time evaluations have changed (say backtests).
Well yes, in the right context, like hobby/personal programming. But things like "we built our own database" tend to be really hard to justify and mostly represent technical people playing toys when they actually have an obligation to the business that is spending the money to not play toys but to spend the money wisely and build a wise architecture, especially for business critical systems.
It's indulgent and irresponsible to do otherwise if standard technology will get you there. The other point is that there are few few applications in 2024 that would have data storage requirements that cannot be met by Postgres or some other common database and if not then perhaps the architecture should be changed to do things in a way that is compatible with existing data storage systems.
Databases in particular as the core of a business system have not only the get "put data in/get data out" requirement but hundreds of sub requirements that relate to deployment and operations and a million other things. You build a database for that core set/get requirement and before you know it you're wondering how to fulfill that vast array of other requirements.
This happens everywhere in corporate development that some CTO who has a personal like for some technology makes the business use that technology when in fact the business needs nothing more than ordinary technology, avoiding all sorts of issues such as recruiting. The CTO moves on, leaving behind the project built with the technology flavor of the month and a project that either needs to struggle to maintain it into the future, or the need to replace it with a more ordinary way of doing things. Likely even the CTO has now lost interest in their playtime technology fad that the industry toyed with and decided isn't a great idea.
So I stand by my comment - they are likely to replace this within a few years with something normal, likely Postgres.
Versioned dataframe native database hits perfectly for attracting productive quant researchers.
(Disclaimer, I'm also CTO of a quant fund and understand what he was optimising for)
edit: I do understand that some people are concerned about juul's alleged marketing to minors. if that's really what you're upset about, why not narrow your focus? I don't think many vape consumers would object to having vape advertisements strictly limited or banned.
I've got a few friends that went this way and it's a bit... odd.
Deleted Comment
It's an Eternal September[0] problem, though, in the fact that any discourse has effectively been quashed by setting up "us versus them" factions, yeah?
In our bubble (on HN), sure, we can have respectable (or maybe not so much) discourse but we all come not holding our fingers in our ears, stamping our feet because we think 'x' person is in 'y' camp.
You don't see the festering problems that have affected other platforms (yet) and I think it's very telling that we recognise that discourse is important - but we seem to be in the minority (in this sense of openness to exchange).
The problem with YouTube, however, is that discourse hasn't been a principle part of YoutTube for quite some time. Someone makes a video. If we're lucky someone else might make a "My Response To..." video and, if we're luckier, a further response might be made, "My Response to the Response To...".
However, all one needs to do is look at the cesspool that has become YouTube comments and they will see that discourse isn't a fundamentally important principle there (anymore).
The likewise goes with places like Reddit, which has divided itself into "us versus them" camps about almost everything under the sun.
So, I agree that (online) discourse is important - but it seems to be a bygone idea that a select few of us (present company included) are desperately trying to hold on to.
I'm conflicted as to whether that should give me a feeling of hope or an immense sadness.
That hasn't been the case for at least a decade now - not after safety requirements were brought to where they are now.
And that 60-80 year lifetime which is supposed to spread the cost is a myth. Most plants are decommissioned before they turn 40 years of operation:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-...
The ballooning of costs is not even significantly due to changing safety requirements, but often due to compliance and environmental requirements. Those are political requirements that could be removed in one fell swoop.