> The rejection of renewable energy and turning back to coal is pure ideology, a macho rejection of environmentalism and wokeism.

To me, this sounds... naïve at best. Coal and especially oil are well-moneyed interests, and also important voting groups.

It's also an ideological, but not entirely nonsensical, fight against subsidizing industries. Which is not quite wise, at the time when China still seriously subsidizes solar and wind.

The reasoning behind yes, it would help is in building data tools for people. So you load up your parque files with data, ingest it into your platform, it uses clickhouse (or some OLAP) for tabulation of data, the platform presents a UI that allows the data engineer to select which fields, etc.

This can only be achieved by utilizing some sort of type system. Whether it's reflecting on the tables, codegen on the fly, or having to write custom adapters for each structure. All of which can be greatly simplified with an ORM.

It's not going to help much with bespoke report asks from the business though.

Unpopular opinion: in 2025, nobody should be reaching for an ORM first. They’re an anti-pattern at this point. The “abstraction” it promises rarely delivers—what you actually get is leaky, slow, and a nightmare to operate at scale.

The sane middle ground is libraries that give you nicer ergonomics around SQL without hiding it (like Golangs sqlx https://github.com/jmoiron/sqlx). Engineers should be writing SQL, period.

this is a neat project. most intriguing to me was that OLAP performance for an OLTP style query was worse.

This really highlights the place for _both_ OLTP and OLAP DBs.

OLTP: when you need to select one

OLAP: when you need to select the world