Many data teams often find themselves as 'tool jockeys' instead of becoming true engineers. They primarily learn some company data, and then rely on drag-and-drop or YML configuration functionality within the constraints of the tool's environment.
Their organization often insists they must use standard tools, and their idea of a good job is that the task works fine within their personal version. No automatic testing, no automated deployment, no version control, and handcrafted environments. And then they get yelled at when things break and yelled at for taking too long. And most DEs want to quit the field after a few years.
The real question is not that DE and software engineering are converging. It's why most DEs don't have the self-respect and confidence to engineer systems so that their lives don't suck.
Prefacing this with an acknowledgement that I'm a public sector data analyst by trade so my experience may not be universal.
My view is that it isn't so much a lack of "self-respect and confidence" but an acknowledgment that the path of least resistance is often the best one. Often data teams are something that was tacked on as an afterthought and the organizational environment is oriented towards buying off-the-shelf solutions rather than developing things in house.
Saying that, versional control and replicable environments are becoming standard in the profession and, as data professionals become first class citizens in organizations, we may find that orgs orient themselves towards a more production focused environment.
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” -Douglas Adams
I really appreciate how functional the building is. It's extremely visually distinct while having really engaging vertical elements (I've always thought it evoked waterfalls) and lacking the functional flaws I've seen with other highly visible architecture (I'm especially thinking of the Gehry Building at MIT - that's whimsical in appearance but an absolute nightmare of usability with awkward unusable interior spaces and a long legacy of mold and maintenance issues).
It's especially amusing that Boston City Hall is within a stone's throw of the only block that survived the fire of 1872 and throws a shadow over Faneuil Hall.
Stata at MIT has sort of grown on me from an abstract architectural perspective. But it cost a lot and I've never really heard good things about it from people who actually use the building though I've never been in it myself aside from the ground floor. It was also sort of justified as a landmark northeast entrance to campus but was soon pretty much literally overshadowed by a lot of newer construction in the area.
Even if every single news site went down on election night, it would be fine. People aren't gonna die if they don't find out who won the election until the next day or even the next week.
The results of this election will not be knowable the night of the election anyway. There are way too many people currently preparing too many different ways to challenge the results regardless of what actually happens.
Finding out the winner on election night is really just a modern illusion. Media "calls" have zero legal weight, and they rely on predictable geographical voting patterns and large enough win margins to build confidence on the outcome before all the unofficial tallies are in. That's way more difficult these days.
The fastest state to certify actual official results takes 2 or 3 days (Delaware), and most states are closer to 2 or 3 weeks.
Harris doesn't need to "attempt it", she somehow became the Democratic choice without a single vote for her, replacing the man who said it'd be ridiculous after all the millions of votes he got
Like it or not (I don't!), primaries are internal functions of membership organizations. The law has found this again and again. In these contests, it is the party delegates who are given the right to choose the party nominee.
It really wasn't. It wasn't difficult for anyone to get past their cheerleading for the Iraq War other than Judith Miller, who (for her service) was given a fake job at a fake conservative paper for a time that I'm sure paid her enough to retire comfortably. The Cheneys and Bushes are media and political darlings. No one paid a price for going with the herd, and doing what the administration demanded.
It was and is difficult for people who failed to cheer on the Iraq War.
The NYT has always been on the administration's side when asked, and "corrects" the record about 5 years after it could make a difference for anyone. Everyone involved gets cush editor-in-chief jobs at "liberal" magazines, or professorships at quarter-million dollar J-schools.
...which says that it's based on reputation. I presume the previous poster's opinion is that the NYT is no longer deserving of that reputation. It's weird that you asked for a citation of their opinion.
Given the disinformation campaign that will take place (at the very least from russian bots flooding social media), I would much prefer all sources of information be fully available throughout the election. Of course this is their highest leverage moment, but it is also critical for the future of the country (at the very least). It is somewhat akin to ambulance drivers choosing to go on strike on Memorial day weekend. I am not a fan of the tactic, since they could strike any other time and get the same thing, perhaps striking 2 days more than they would have to at this time.
The best single volume overview is this page-turner, which embraces Vienna and Paris, for math, science, philosophy, literature and art at the turn of the 20th century:
The First Moderns: Profiles in the Origins of Twentieth-Century Thought
Are people's historic perspectives really that cartoonishly small-minded?
The early 20th century was a flashpoint where rising powers decided who would become the global superpower.
Agree or not about antisemitism and nationalism, both of those were enormously popular, mainstream things. It wasn't weird or fringe to adopt an national ideology character used by those things. So much of Europe (centered around Germany) acting on those views isn't the cause of their downfall—on the contrary, they were convinced (and these were not dumb people who couldn't see patterns) that such things would strengthen their people and their homes.
So obviously that isn't what "screwed it all up". What screwed it all up was the existence of other rising powers and the timing of it all. Their rise was threatened by a strong Germany. This is all completely mundane, predictable global politics.
The rest, about who was "evil" and "the bad guys" is almost entirely fiction written by the victors—also, coincidentally, completely mundane and predictable.
Clarifying that I misread who this was a response to. I thought you were talking about Germany and the area around it, and in specific with the last part of your comment, referring to Germany.
For a laugh, here is our founder chat from this weekend:
GB: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/englishpaulm_just-heard-from-...
CB: I'm glad we don't have to deal with that shit.:hankey:
EE: arg. yeah. I think about the funding route at times, but then see threads like this, and it’s a lot of yuck.
GB: Terrible. They did invest, but they just squeezed the founder out.
CB: How is the new vacation home?