segah

Nord Stream 1 was stopped. Gas is still flowing from Russia.

Anyways, the argument is actually more likely the opposite. Opposition was planning a sabotage. In anticipation, to downplay the impact, Putin claimed to punish Europe by stopping Nord Stream1.

It is a reactionary action.

This is not correct.

Gas supplies are controlled by state-owned corporation. Putin and this corporation are one. There is no multi-factions within this organization. It is 100% under Putin's governance. If there was interest to cut supplies, they would have done this publicly. And they have the PR/Media to spin the story however they want.

On the other hand, elites don't benefit from this gas supply. For example, it keeps Ruble unreasonably high for their own exports. And it keeps the government under Putin's control (Gas finances the war as well as his pockets). And undermining gas supplies, creates a consensus among elites that Putin will not be able to sustain the economy for very long. Once there is a consensus, it is much easier to move against Putin.

In simple terms, like any Middle Eastern Dictator economy, Russian dictatorship is managed through government-controlled oil supplies, which elites don't have direct control over. If oil supplies are taken out of the equation, the economy collapses unless elites take over to manage it with alternative methods.

Bottom line, if gas stops flowing from Russia, elites (technology ceos, aluminium exporters, bankers, etc) gain back control.

Might be shocking to some, but not all of Russia is one people. There are multiple interests there among country's leaders. And one such interest: to get rid off Putin's regime quickly. One way of doing this is to prevent any notion of "restorable" economic relationships with Europe under Putin. Without Gas, who needs Putin's Russia...

A prediction: we will see more of such actions in the coming months, leading to the winter

Figured this out for LinkedIn :) javascript:(function(){var i=0;var f=function(){ let l=document.getElementsByClassName('artdeco-button artdeco-button--muted artdeco-button--3 artdeco-button--tertiary ember-view invitation-card__action-btn')[0];if (!!l){setTimeout(function(){l.click();}, 100);setTimeout(function(){ document.getElementsByClassName('artdeco-modal__confirm-dialog-btn artdeco-button--primary')[0].click();},2500);setTimeout(function(){f();},2500);}};f();})()

My father (https://bit.ly/3acZAAI), who is a certified CCSP Ethical Hacker and formerly worked @ZScaler/Checkpoint/Palo Alto Networks, would say that there are basically two scenarios: someone like him did it intentionally or someone like him did it by mistake.

Any other scenario of outsiders, code updates, etc - basically misses the point of how modern DNS infrastructure works.

Am I missing something or have Yodlee and Intuit account aggregation have provided this service now for more than a decade?

that's the wrong question. People choose different tools for all kinds of reasons. And many of these reasons are totally valid. A tool, Looker or otherwise, is no panacea.

@akalitenya the way I used to explain it to the technical audience is: would you rather program in a low-level language like C or in a high-level language like Java, Python, or Node? Well, if you are writing compilers, you might choose C, but if you are doing almost everything else, you want to choose a language that fits the purpose: python for data science, Node for web backend, etc. Same with LookML - it provides a language that is ideal for doing analytics in-database. SQL is a language for extracting and summarizing data - it is not an ideal language to preserve business logic in just as C would not be an ideal language to preserve backend web dev. work in.

"scale" meant adoption, not performance. Scaling performance can generally be solved with hardware. Adoption, not so much.

wow, impressive! how about symmetric aggregates (e.g. being able to do correct summation/aggregation on numeric values despite a one_to_many join)?

mmmm, both!

Tech-wise, data stacks are complicated. Hundreds of pre-existing tools, with many owners and diverse interests. BI is where they all meet. With some organizations its easy to build a central data warehouse, but in a large corporate environment that's a dream. Imagine how many data warehouses an organization like Microsoft might have? OK, MS is too large - how about Expedia or Zillow? Thousands? So you connect a tool like Looker--that was designed for 2-10 connections--to a thousand? How do you even administer all the connections? How do you govern access? Access permissions at Looker (and other BI tools) are great, but it would take you 10 years to set them up for 1,000 DBs. And what about tool access? Some want SSH tunneling, others want complete on-prem. Some need Google authentication, while others want one through a pre-existing corporate login. Most large organizations typically end up building--or hiring someone to build--their own custom solutions on top of these tools. Such custom solutions are bigger projects than the implementation of a BI tool to begin with. Oh, and most also fail. The success of a BI in an enterprise environment is partly good sales/marketing/support, but a big part is due to the product achieving some form of maturity with all this side tech--the stuff totally not core to the analytics itself.

Business-wise, try getting people with diverse backgrounds agree on common terminology. Let's take marketing for instance. Should be easy, no? But hey, marketing is actually like 10-20 different kinds of people - some know SQL, others can't put 2+2 together and arrive at anything other than the word "magic". Some think in terms of stories--others think in terms of conversion funnels. OK, so you've put together some data dictionary, did some training, segmented users into 1) technical ones (SQL/LookML/BackML...), 2) business (explore), 3) consumers (dashboards/pretty charts). But now it turns out that much of the data they rely on is generated by a different team--say, operations or sales. Again, you've got 10-20 different kinds of personalities there. Somehow all these people have to agree. How do you make them all agree? Short answer: you cannot. No one can. They don't even like speaking to one another - and now you are going to come in and make them agree on what kind of KPI is going to determine their success => bonus. Hell no!

There are ways to make progress on both fronts. And, no doubt, an open source project has some chance. But it is not easy. And no one has really done it in 30 years. Many have tried.

Full disclosure: I love BigQuery (Google Cloud partner). Love Looker. Rely on Open Source constantly. Just trying to demonstrate a realistic view of how hard this problem is.

@akalitenya are you even in the clear with this? Some of the Old LookML syntax is an exact copy.

But more importantly, the challenge for any such tool is to go beyond use by 2-3 people. At 2-3 people anything will work. Where BI tools (open source and close source) struggle is scale: having all the right features for, essentially, a group of users who actually don't know how to work with data (did I just say that aloud?). Chartio caps at 20 people. RJ capped at 50-100 (and later became Stitch for that reason). We haven't seen where Metabase caps, but I bet it is in a similar range. Very few BI products have actually surpassed 100 users at target installations. And beyond 1,000 is a real challenge that only few, and even then with a lot of assistance, can support: Tableau, Looker, Microstrategy, maybe Birst, maybe Domo.

Also, a combination of BI with LookML is a complicated product. During my days at Looker, we were handling 50+ bugs / week, and filing 1,000+ tickets. Every day we were filing over a 100 new features.

So with all that, the question is, is it really worth the struggle? What's the end vision for supporting this? Why should someone who implements BI for a living bet on this product?

OP here. This is straight from the theory book. But from my experience there is a lot more gray area

People still charge only $100/hour? standard Professional Services tech consulting rate is $250