Great Expectations is another tool that offers data quality and data profiling functionality but for a whole suit of different data sources including csv, jdbc and parquet.
Many of the comments in this thread appear to be missing the context of what has happening at Basecamp.
From the Verge;
> While Basecamp does not publish diversity statistics, it is still, like most tech companies, majority white and male, employees said. But the idea of worker-led efforts on diversity issues got a frosty reception from the founders last year, employees told me. They were allowed to work on the project, but did not feel as if the founders were particularly invested in the outcome.
> Nonetheless, the DE&I ( Diversity and inclusion) council attracted significant support. More than a third of the company — 20 out of roughly 58 employees — volunteered to help. They began examining Basecamp’s hiring processes, which vendors the company works with, how Basecamp employees socialize, and what speakers they might invite to one of the all-remote company’s twice-yearly in-person gatherings.
It sounds like you are looking for a 9 to 5 job, which are quite plentiful in the SE industry. As others have said, look at governments and established larger companies.
Re: your comment about places looking for ambition and a “story”. Honestly I would recommend you fake it till you get in. Many HR departments in large organizations try find people that meet a certain stereotype but their decisions are often completely removed from the team you would be placed in. This means that you can project an ambitious career personality but once you get in you can start coasting. I would encourage you to try reframe your career and achievements into a narrative that suits what HR is looking for.
Poverty is just another form of slavery. Using your line of hyperbole I could also say the same for any developed capitalist nation.
Now more to your point. The worker movements in the developed west was not shy to use force.
An example in England would be workers marching to a factory owners house demanding better working conditions or else they’d kill him. I believe similar events also happened in the US.
> (Wealthy nations) who said that a ban would stifle innovation at pharmaceutical companies by robbing them of the incentive to make huge investments in research and development.
I can’t believe that pharmaceutical companies get away with this narrative. A large portion of drugs that end up being approved for use are funded and enabled by government funding. [1][2] The Covid vaccine wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for government funding [3].
If anyone is interested in reading about this topic in terms of late stage capitalism I would highly recommend a book by Mark Fisher titled Capitalist Realism.
In it he talks about “Stalinist Capitalism” I.e. a capitalist society that is obsessed with metrics which optimize for arbitrary goals at the expense goals which are intangible or hard to measure. It focuses on the metric obsessed cultures that have developed within many private organizations.
Two examples come to mind, universities prioritizing publishing count vs publishing impact and lines of code written vs impact of code.
I would openly welcome this. As a data Scientist who’s seen some dodgy shit happen within the various companies I’ve consulted with, I think this would go a long way in preventing dangerous models reaching production.
I think a better comparison should be with how the actuarial industry conducts itself. They have been doing “data science” for decades but equally so are bound by professional standards and expectations.
My experience on LinkedIn seems to be radically different from what most people experience. It might be because I quite aggressively unfollow connections if they post content I don’t want to see on LinkedIn - I.e. memes and political content.
My feed usually consists of job opportunities, business news, academic articles, tech blogs and recommendations for new data science/data engineering/ml tooling.
I think this article brings up an important problem wrt how people interpretation what “liberal” means.
Liberal != Left
> It's confusing because we tend to use them interchangeably in the US. But as far as the true meaning of the terms:
Classical Liberalism: the early form of liberalism popularized in the 1700s. strongly rooted in individual liberty in both social and economic matters. Opposes the idea of a strong activist government and believes in the free market economy and and believes strongly in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. U.S. Libertarians are often a good example of a "classical liberal".
social liberalism: A more modern form of liberalism. They generally believe in many of the same values: (market capitalism, individual liberty) but differ in the fact that they believe the government has more of a role in ensuring the market allocates resources fairly and making market corrections were the free market fails (social welfare, environmental regulation, etc.) they also tend to see more of a role for government in protecting people's liberty (lgbt protections etc.) Many mainstream Democrats are social liberals.
Leftist: Generally have adopted the term Progressive in the US. They mainly differ from social liberals in that they believe the free market system is inherently flawed to favor the rich and powerful and believe that the government should either work within the framework of the market system but heavily regulate it and pay for more social services and welfare through higher taxation on the rich and corporations (social democracy) or abandon the free market all together in favor of socialism. There are not really in mainstream figures in the US that are true socialist, but "progressive" figures in the US such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (even though he calls himself a democratic socialist) tend to favor some form of social democracy.[1]
> Rather than questioning your material conditions, the merchants of modern Stoicism want you to change what’s in your head.
Having tried the stoic life a couple of times while fighting depression. I’ve always left the experience feeling that I gas lighting my self into accepting my circumstances and it would inevitably make me feel worse.
I was only able to come to terms with my depression and find purpose in my life once I started doing the exact opposite of stoic teachings. By embracing my emotions(good and bad) and allowing my self to be influenced by them did I start living a better and more fulfilling life.
I agree with this comment. The single best thing you can do for you career is to learn how and when to say no.
What’s helped me feel comfortable saying no to project scope creep or decisions that will result in overtime is the fact that if projects run over time then it is a failure on managements side; they are responsible for the resources provided and the end deliverables.
Managers will (often) not tell you to work less, they will always find work to fill the time you’re willing to work so it’s very important you place boundaries.
You can place boundaries in two ways, explicit and implicit.
1) An example of an explicit boundaries would be informing the PO during a standup that their feature request will result in you working weekends which you won’t do.
2) An implicate boundary would be not responding to emails, slack messages or PR outside office hours.
I think your argument is engaging in “what aboutism” and detracts from the issue this article is trying to address.
The problem they are trying to address is that true meritocracy only exists in a perfect system,
that is to say that you can not fairly compare individuals across different environments. More concretely one of the problems it is trying to account for the situations where wealth or post code privilege gives students an advantage over other students.
There are often situations where students just performed better on a standardized test because they could afford a couch or had better teachers and not because they are “smarter” or more capable.
I agree with your observation. From my observation Dutch startups live by the motto “steady wins the race” and to a larger extent I think it speaks to the risk aversion ingrained in their culture - both in their startup and VC mentalities.
They would rather bootstrap and grow with stability then pull a softbank and use/give massive capital injections in the hopes of getting market efficient domination.
https://github.com/great-expectations/great_expectations