You seem pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. Any book or other material recommendations detailing the history of both brands? The rivalry is legendary, but seeing results across decades trying to outdo each other and the market is pretty interesting I’m sure.
I'm not aware of any book specifically addressing the rivalry or both brands at once. My opinion is that this rivalry mostly exists in the press and in the public imagination and therefore would make poor fodder for a book. In contrast, Ferrari's dealings with Ford both on and off the racetrack are much more interesting, and have generated a lot of writing as well as the recent movie.
My #1 book recommendation would be Luca Dal Monte's excellent recent biography on Enzo Ferrari. In a field dominated by shallow coffee table books and breathless romanticism, it's a comprehensive, scholarly history that remains very readable. Not much material on Lamborghini, though. Unfortunately like many auto books it is now out of print and prices are in "collector" territory. Still worth picking up if you can.
This is incredible to see all in one place. I’m preaching SQL to my Org. and it’s only getting preachier over the years, as I see new technologies come and go (OLAP, NoSQL and it’s many variations including Hadoop, Azure Cosmos DB).
For an Org. of our size, I’m not sure if these new fads make it any easier. Even if they helped with data streaming, we still are having to move it to a SQL warehouse where we can combine it with other Org. data to answer business questions. Not sure if anyone has built out a fully operational reporting architecture without using SQL on HN. Long live SQL!
> I’m preaching SQL to my Org. and it’s only getting preachier over the years
We are all-in on using SQL (SQLite) for our business logic these days. It's wonderful being able to watch the business build most of our customer experiences for us. No more lost-in-translation bullshit exercises between the biz and the tech. Our developers are now mostly tending to the SQL matrix that everyone else works inside of every day. Most of my support issues are along the axis of "Why isnt customer property X showing up in table Y under circumstances Z". We have built a lot of custom tooling so we can quickly answer this question with confidence. 9/10 times the resolution is 1 line in a mapper that needs to be updated somewhere.
For me, SQL only works if the schema is clean and the business can understand why it is constructed in the way that it is. If you were to dump your SQL schema to excel sheets and email it to your project manager, would they have a clue how to piece these things back together or why things are represented the way they are? A well-normalized schema should be intuitive to join together by even non-domain experts. Simply being consistent with naming throughout is 80% of this battle in my mind. When someone says the word "Customer" in context of your SQL schema, everyone on the team should implicitly be on the same page regarding properties and relations around this type.
I've only had contact with DBs during my university years so please bear with me, but at least to me (mostly a systems programmer who played around with functional and logic programming languages) SQL seems, I dunno.. very crude? For instance it seems to me that PROLOG is a lot better at querying/defining relational facts.
Also every time I looked into SQL DBs I felt uncomfortable having to patch together SQL queries as strings and compile them at runtime. Why can't I define a DB schema in my compiled programming language and have it produce a typesafe query that can execute immediately? I know there's wrappers that help you define queries in a typesafe manner, but afaik these still generate query strings in the background.
Few people, when they say "SQL is amazing!", mean the language.
The language is ok minus, it's usable and isn't a problem center. String parsing isn't expensive enough for anyone to replace, and there are many benefits to the 100% language decoupling it ensures.
What we mean is "RDBMSs are amazing!", and they are. Humanity has spent a lot of resources on their design and evolution, making them into systems that efficiently solve your hard problems years before you first find out you have them.
I'd love to have the ability to write a direct query plan, for the rare occasion where the query planner does something stupid. But, ya SQL is great for the majority of situations.
AIUI, you can have a key-value store is an SQL RDBMS: Just make a big bunch of two-column -- key and value -- tables.
Also, again AIUI, you can build an RDBMS on top of a key-value store: "Just" build a whole lot of key-value pairs where the "value" is a reference to another key more often than not. (Perhaps not just for actual references to other related tables -- or what would be another table in a real RDBMS -- but for each separate key-value store that would just be another column in a real RDBMS. Then I suppose your primary ("key column") key-value pair would have a lot of rows for each key; one for each "column"?)
I suspect most real-world usage of key-value stores in one fashion or another approaches the above... And then the vaunted "simplicity" has gone out the window (and made SPLAT! on the ground far below).
But by then you're so [invested in | married to | sunk cost-fallacied with] your key-value store that changing to a real RDBMS is nigh impossible.
So better start with a real RDBMS from the beginning.
You are absolutely right! They seam easier to reason about. But relational databases actually are simpler to reason about when you compare equivalent feature sets. I've seen people argue it is just a key value store, so it is dead simple, right? But then they didn't just use key value store features. They used or implemented themselves joins, transactions, consistency constraints under parallel modifications, etc. But this is not the system for which they determined that it is simple.
But even for simple use cases durability might be a requirement. And that is not so simple to get right.
You're right too, it's hard to know from the start what you will need, and your needs will often grow to the point that you'll need a full relational database.
OLAP isn't a technology and it didn't go away. That's an approach your and many other orgs have been using for decades to do data warehousing. NoSQLs definitely didn't go away.
The need for denormalized data and data warehousing will never go away.
I am interested in this as well. The regular media can be monotonous or driven by agendas. Would be great to find content created by folks paid to write unbiased, say it like it is.
OP shows up to comment! Love your article! I echo the first comment in your article, about writing a book. There can be never be too many books about 90s era Jobs.
There can't be a single repository of online data, which by design gives the repository owner too much power and control. Blaming the users for falling for it is like saying we can't have regulation because markets can self-regulate themselves.
After the last 3 years, anyone who defends Facebook comes across as disingenuous, naive or for a lack of a better word, a shill in my book.
Saying Facebook wants to protects your personal information is the most hypocritical statement, I've heard yet.
I don't think you and parent disagree. Facebook will do a good job of 'protecting' your personal data because that allows them —exclusively— to benefit from it. Though the definition of 'protecting' might differ, Facebook's might sacrifice that protection to benefit at any point. As a user, you're not in control of that transaction and will never benefit.
Also lets not forget Facebook as to appear somewhat protective of data, or they'll scare off even more user. Negative consequences of users sharing their data have to appear dystopian fiction.
I’m tied to Windows at work. I’ve tried to start a few conversations about offering MacBooks as an option, but that never goes anywhere due to the additional upfront cost.
Given that constraint, I picked up Vim and have used it for the past 6 years. Tried Emacs at first, but it didn’t play well on Windows (not sure if user error!)
So I definitely encourage “reinventing the wheel” on multiple platforms, as long as the platform is popular enough. Competition doesn’t hurt.
I'm holding on to this single strand of hope that Tom Hanks is above these recent allegations.
If it comes out that he was also a sleaze bag along with Charlie Rose, Al Franken, Jeffrey Tambor, (along with an incredible family movie director in the rumor circles) I don't know what to think of Hollywood and my childhood heroes anymore.
Tom Hanks, if you have to say anything, do so now rather than later!
I'd imagine several small businesses these days would opt for the "vote manipulation" marketing since its easy. (The Silicon Valley TV show had a similar plot point).
