Depends on what you mean by "the subject". dbt doesn't claim to be a testing tool. Personally I use dbt all the time, while I didn't know about the existence of DBT-2. Different worlds apparently.
Have you ever been burned by trying to install Docker and getting the whole new desktop manager installed because Docker is a widget in that desktop manager (I believe it's in Gnome)?
Actually happened to me twice (different distros at different times did include Docker, the container management tool as "docker" while more commonly naming it something else, like "docker-engine").
As for dbt. I mean... imagine you are selecting the name for your company, that's in SQL business, and you don't even bother to type into your favorite Web search engine "dbt sql"... I mean, it's definitely a business about DataBases, so, certainly a 3-letter acronym with "D" and "B" in it in that order would be truly unique, right?
I'd bet is that what happened is that these people, just like you, thought "I don't know what that is, so it must be unimportant", and they never stopped to consider that they might not know something important about the field they are in.
I believe his point is about coin flipping being a fundamental force in the market. That at the basis of a market, there’s a game of coin flips going on.
True, there may be technological innovations in factories, farms, and labs that grow the size of the pie as a whole. But probably those with most market power will have most of the access to those innovations.
And even if the value of technology would be fairly distributed, it does feel to me that the underlying game of coin flips rigs the whole system in favor of the eventual oligarch.
Amsterdam local here — in fact, I live in exactly this street. Where the first cartel guy gets subdued is where I get my coffee, and the people that live in the canal houses are my neighbors. (My house may or may not be in the map, would have to play the game to check.)
Fun facts:
(1) A year or two ago several guys spent days using some sort of device to scan all buildings in our street. They got complaints from several bar owners and tenants as they appeared to be taking photographs inside the buildings, and they wouldn’t explain why. I wouldn’t be be surprised if it was for this map.
(2) The footage is hyperrealistic not just graphically, they got the details right with surprising accuracy. Even the garbage bins are in exactly the right place. (It’s also not unlikely that a guy could be subdued like this without people being too surprised, as tourists like to use this district to get wasted 24/7.)
If there would be several guys photographing my building or bar, and would not explain why, I would call the cops, because that is extremely invasive, probably illegal and suspicious. You can photograph the „public“ but not private spaces like bars, inside of buildings and so on.
And the „we don’t tell you“ would not fly with the police.
This area has few bikes compared to the rest of the city, due to the sheer amount of foot traffic. Truckloads of british tourists are unloaded here every day.
I bought an apartment. Living here (ie. red light district) is not for everyone though because the area gets an insane amount of tourists. There is social housing too.
>So essentially, the company gets version 2 of the code, at the cost of 1x user time + 1x developer time. Instead of version 2 of the code, in 2x developer time, which is too expensive and never happens.
Not sure why, but in my experience the difference has been closer to 1x user time + 1x developer time <> 4x developer time.
I believe empowering a customer to think along — be pushed to their limits, even — within the boundaries of a system's technical/business domain _from the very start_ is likely to dramatically improve a system's design.
From a technical perspective it may not be architected well, but in terms of user <> business fit it probably will be.
The club is the people, the owners own the shares of the company.
Your comment frames the situation as a "League Owner" vs "Club Owner" power struggle. That struggle is real, but it ignores the critical aspect that makes European football appealing: European football is about the clubs, the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.
In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton, not because Malaysians want to watch them.
Reason European clubs are good is that they're intertwined with society. European football became big business, but that's not where it came from, nor what it is.
From my experience, clubs are much more connected with the community in Europe. Where I'm from, you'd have sports clubs that offer different sports at different levels. In Germany you'll find a "Sportverein (SV), Fussballclub (FC), Turn- und Sportgemeinschaft (TSG), etc" in almost every town. If it's a generic club, they'll have many sports. Eintracht Frankfurt for instance has a Bundesliga football team but they also have amateur football teams, handball teams, hockey, etc. Towns often have more than one sports club so there connection to "your" club as well.
So there is a direct connection between your town and the sports club. It's the place where you sign your kid up to participate in team sports. Independent clubs aren't really a thing in Europe, for instance Bayern Munich is the team from Munich. They'll probably never be based in Berlin just because they're making them a better offer. Local clubs often have a long history, too. It's not uncommon for a local sports club to be over a hundred years old as well (TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, founded in 1899).
Clubs are heavily involved in their communities. They do a lot of charity and community work. Lots of players come through the club’s youth system, which usually contains a disproportionate number of local kids.
The history of the clubs and cities are intertwined. It’s just a massive cultural deal. Can’t properly explain it but the clubs are part of it people’s identity, which often they inherit from their parents.
In the UK most clubs are literally in the middle of a residential community. In many working-class towns they're the literal and emotional centre of the community - visible from all around and one of just a few unchanging social things shared across generations. People are very heavily invested into them.
I don't think that's it. For fans, whether you "belong" to a club has nothing to do with money. It more what city you were born in, what games did your parents take you to when you were young, what trading cards did you own when you were a child or who were your idols when you played football as a kid, things like that.
I was shocked when I learned that American sports teams could be bought and moved to another city.
I've never care for soccer or followed any of it. But I know enough to know that if you tried to move a big British soccer team to another city it might just set of a minor civil war.
Trafford is 20 minutes walk from the centre of Manchester. Bolton (or Horwich as it now) will take you a couple of hours. Also Trafford has been Manchester for as long as the club has been there (and it was Manchester when it was Newton Heath).
Whether you support City or United has been a cultural thing going back 100 years. It kind of defines you and where you fit in. I know some people that have had season passes for City for 50+ years, passed down from father to son. It is totally part of their identity.
> That’s not even remotely geographically correct.
Which bit is wrong? Old Trafford is in Trafford which is in Manchester. Bolton is in Greater Manchester which, ok, isn't what people would possibly understand by "Manchester" but it's still viable.
In a recent game half of the Manchester United onfield players were local or academy players. Mostly local.
I’m so confused by this question. Do clubs in other sports not play a massive part in the community?
Manchester United did so much to help people in the pandemic. They have strong links with local charities. The footballers do a lot for charity. Rashford is an obvious superstar in that regard but it’s across the board.
Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...
>Do American sports clubs not play a massive part in their community? I don’t get why this question keeps coming up. Of course the clubs are central institutions in their community...
I grew up in the US, and I always viewed them as businesses. They sell entertainment, and are free to do what's needed to boost their bottom lines. The businesses can move (and have moved) to wherever they think they might earn more money.
I bootstrapped a company and I believe the decision to remain self-financed contributed to a more tightly knit culture with more T-shaped roles than you’d typically see in venture-backed companies.
We could have raised money but the reason we didn’t had something to do with both me and my team desiring a certain degree of learning and freedom to operate in fields where we have intrinsic motivation.
It might or might not have happened simultaneously, but I remember reading that one of the founders of Basecamp, a company famous for being mostly bootstrapped, created Ruby on Rails around the same time.
I believe it can be done in different ways, also in ways more sustainable ways than the examples of Jobs and Musk that you’re referring to.
> If you have the same skills, you should be paid the same?
Why is that? I don’t necessarily disagree with your statement. But why would it be fair for someone of equal skill to be able to afford less food and healthcare just because they live in a place with higher prices and higher taxes?
Should everybody be incentivized to relocate to a developing country or tax haven because of the internet and your equality rule?
Why would it be fair for someone of equal skill to be able to afford less food, less healthcare, less living space and fewer gadgets for themselves just because they have a bigger family and more kids to support? ;)
Generally what you do with your money should not be a business of your employer.
> Should everybody be incentivized to relocate to a developing country or tax haven because of the internet and your equality rule?
You're silently assuming the quality of life in developing countries is the same as in other countries and the only thing they differ with is the level of prices or taxes. This is generally not true.
Why would it be fair for someone of equal skill to be able to afford [less food, less healthcare, less living space and fewer gadgets] for themselves just because they have a [smaller family and fewer kids to support]?
Generally what [your employer does] with [your employer's] money should not be [your] business.
Indeed. There are two views of employee compensation - you can have people that you compensate as a share of value added/profit share (this is very common for sales:its easy to record who sells what;selling more means more revenue - giving a share of that revenue to the seller aligns goals. In theory, and for commodities; in software you also get sales people that overpromise and lead to developers working themselves into an early grave, never having a hope of satisfying any customers..) - and you can have "wage slaves": people you pay wages to for a share of their time.
In the latter case, from a strictly economic standpoint, you'd prefer workers to pay you (eg us prison labour...).
In a strictly value-add/profit share the more value a worker produce, the higher the compensation and the higher the company revenue.
Now software business (knowledgewwork) is typically somewhere on the scale between these two.
I'd personally say that given gitlab's product and business - they would probably be better off leaning a bit more towards the latter - allow a great softare engineer in rural UK or eastern Europe get (locally) silly rich;and allow those that feel like it to move to less crowded locations without docking their compensation. As long as they only get a share of generated added value, this should be a win-win.
Games aren’t sold for the same price regardless of where they were produced? Sure they do. They sell for different prices in different places they’re sold, but where they were produced has little impact on the price in each location.
The fact that I make X here while pay is 4X in SF is the only proof needed to show job markets and pay levels are local.
If a SF company wants to hire me remotely, I'll take the job at 1.5X, so they won't pay more than that. The simple reason is this: If I don't want the job at 1.5X the local pay, I my neighbor does, and he's every bit as good an engineer as I am. When they do hire me at 1.5X my current pay, they have bought my skill at the local market rate.
You make a good point: as an employee you are not the product, you are part of a team — and the team is just one ingredient in the manufacturing of a product. An important ingredient, but not the whole story nonetheless.
Taking that further: as a human you are also part of the physical community that you live in. A developer in a small town might help out the local library, whereas a developer in a big city might organize tech meet-ups to help their peers.
I'm not saying one situation is better than the other, but I can imagine not just different price points, but also different valuations for equal skill depending on location.
>Should everybody be incentivized to relocate to a developing country
Absolutely. I am living in an Eastern European country, and yes, the local market would absolutely need people with western income: all the restaurants, local services, and the local economy would benefit from this. With practices like Gitlab, our local market would be locked into this shitty state it is in right now. Basically they lock us into not being able to export our only product for a good price: we export our 'knowledge' for cheap.
But I think if all-remote will be a thing, this will be unsustainable. People will fight these immoral practices with 'cheating': what stops me pretending to be living in a western country (even renting a cheap flat there), but staying most of the year in my country? Will they examine my nationality or citizienship? Pretty scary stuff, but I might apply for a western-country citizienship then. If they fuck with us, we will fight.
Ok, lets say we live in the same street, work in the same office, do the same work and we both provide exactly the same value to the company.
Lets say your mother has given you her old car to drive and you just pay insurance and gas.
Lets say I bought a Ferrari Roma.
What you are saying is that you'd find it unfair if I were paid 'as little' as you, because I have to deal with the expenses of paying off my Ferrari. I'll take that deal.
pay your local in-house employees based on what suburb they live in, workers who live in expensive areas should be paid more because it costs them more
>Should everybody be incentivized to relocate to a developing country or tax haven because of the internet and your equality rule?
Yes, actually. Well, tax havens shouldn't be legal in the first place, but getting people with good salaries into poorer countries is good, because they pay taxes there.
Of course, the vast majority of people would actually not go to poor countries, they would simply leave cities. Which is also something that should definitely be incentivized.
> Well, tax havens shouldn't be legal in the first place
Why not? Why can’t each country decide for themselves how much tax they want people and corporations within their jurisdiction to pay? Shouldn’t be legal in what jurisdiction? Why should any other country get any say with how a different country conducts its taxes?
