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.
HN guidelines are to steelman what you are responding to.
So, assume "examine how employees socialise" means "consider events where people go beyond who their usual contacts are, to enable more mentoring". Rather than, "spying on me and building a graph of contacts".
I suppose you are right and there is a range of implementations a committee comprised of a third of the workforce could use to "examine how employees socialize." Maybe its unfair to react simply to the text and not do the work of broader interpretation.
In terms of the guidelines, I am not a guideline lawyer as perhaps you are. When I think of the strongest plausible interpretation I often turn to Occam and accept the plain language meaning. For example, if a goal of the committee were to encourage mentoring, then the article could have said that.
In terms of strongest plausible interpretation of what I wrote, I did not write "spying on me and building a graph of contacts." I'm a person who is appreciative of privacy and would be annoyed by a group of colleagues who decided to "examine" me in any way. As I think about it now I can feel a wave of revulsion and annoyance toward a posse of busybodies who must not have enough actual work to do that they have time to "examine" me. Maybe you like being examined; me I still think people who volunteer to do that are creepy.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
[...]
Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it...
My last test for NMO was a little over a year ago. It was definitively negative. I'm responding really well to Ocrelizumab, which my neurologist tells me would probably be what he would treat me with for NMO too, so it's sort of a moot point for me whether it's MS or NMO. Treatment is the same, outcomes are the same.
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.
https://github.com/great-expectations/great_expectations