There has never been more interest in extreme equations and fabulous formulas than there is today.
We are on the cusp of an extraordinary revolution in every-day analysis of data, items and things. And leading the charge is the mighty double-headed megatrend-busting digital-hydra of data calculations and information recipes.
Please consider sharing these links and a recommendation with friends, connections, groups, colleagues, partners, peers, family and bosses.
Oiling the wheels-of-industry during COVID-19.
Thanks a million! Stay safe and keep well!
Move over big data hubris and data lake stupidity there’s a newer, thicker and far bigger arsehole on the block. And it goes by the unbelievably idiotic name of data lakehouse. It is being hailed as a new paradigm but is, in reality, a naive, dishonest and disruptive fraud. So what’s occurring?
The gutter-snipes, hustlers and useless pundits who failed to make big data and data lakes the success of the 2010s have set their vulture-eyed sights on data warehousing. It’s not smart, it is not funny, and it does no one any service.
Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.
Can we predict the future of humankind in the same way that we forecast the weather?
In an article published in The Guardian, the journalist Laura Spinney discusses how historical data could be used, not only to predict the future of humankind but to save it as well. The piece titled “History as a giant data set: how analysing the past could help save the future” discussed how a small group of academics had come up with the notion that the analysis of historical big-data could be used in useful ways for the common good. At least that was my initial takeaway.
If the resignation of Theresa May has taught us something it is that we can’t be taught anything. Yes, May has resigned as leader of the Tories, but is she capable of delivering her actual departure from Downing Street on time in the way she seems to be saying she will? And, do the Tory MPs and their supporters actually know what departure from Downing Street really looks like? Does departure mean departure? Should it be a hard or soft departure? A crash out departure or a negotiated departure? Or, should we all have another vote on it? Or perhaps that would be undemocratic and against the “will of the people”?