There isn't a winner and there likely won't be one (at least not for a long time). Tabular will likely be acquired by Snowflake and the two industry behemoths now back their own formats, and each will treat their own as a first class citizen.
Agreed, this is why we want to support both. Maybe even Apache Hudi down the line. But I hope the industry converges to a main standard rather than Snowflake/Databricks fighting for their own formats. They can differentiate on much more meaningful features
There’s a lot of interesting work happening in this area (see: XTable).
We are building a Python distributed query engine, and share a lot of the same frustrations… in fact until quite recently most of the table formats only had JVM client libraries and so integrating it purely natively with Daft was really difficult.
We finally managed to get read integrations across Iceberg/DeltaLake/Hudi recently as all 3 now have Python/Rust-facing APIs. Funny enough, the only non-JVM implementation of Hudi was contributed by the Hudi team and currently still lives in our repo :D (https://github.com/Eventual-Inc/Daft/tree/main/daft/hudi/pyh...)
It’s still the case that these libraries still lag behind their JVM counterparts though, so it’s going to be a while before we see full support across the full featureset of each table format. But we’re definitely seeing a large appetite for working with table formats outside of the JVM ecosystem (e.g. in Python and Rust)
I'm a huge fan of Kaufman's work but only recently saw Synecdoche, New York, which immediately became my favorite movie, ever. That led me down a rabbit hole of listening to basically every recorded interview he's ever given. He's absolutely brilliant, sincerely humble, probably depressed, and just an absolute joy to listen to. I have a simple quote from him on my computer that I look at from time to time:
I try to do what I can to put something in the world that is not garbage.
Synecdoche, New York is an awe-inspiring work, but it's incredibly hard to watch and left me ruined, mentally, for days afterwards. It's obvious why it's not a popular movie -- he talks about wounds in this speech, and that movie is basically an open psychic sore. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to make a movie that's so relentlessly grim and honest.
I also found found it incredibly hard to watch, and was also ruined me for days if not weeks. In fact, I think a certain part of me has been permanently changed.
And that is exactly why it is now my favorite movie. A lot of movies have moved me, but this thing did something I didn't even know movies could do.
I can echo the others. It's also my favorite movie, period. It is a movie that psychically assaults either vicariously through the characters and/or (likely and) through identifying with the themes of struggling with the idea of artistic experience, destiny, legacy, etc. Even if you don't "actually" believe in all of those things it's probably because you contended with these ideas before and came to some psychologically safe (ethically and philosophically coherent, at least internally) conclusion about them, but this movie really tugs at those deepest heartstrings and induces a reliving of the main character's struggles with those themes.
The first time I watched it I had to pause it halfway through... the next couple hours I was in a mental space that can only be rationalized as "schizophrenic". I thought everyone around me were psychopaths and I was the only sane one, but lived that in a more or less manic way. The only other piece of art that's had that kind of effect on me is the novel Naked Lunch. It's my favorite movie precisely because of how unflinchingly it plumbs those depths, those cracks, of the human condition and the anxiety of dying having not contributed enough.
Thanks for reaching out. I'm in a good place where I think I'm doing great. The description of the main character's negative attributes sounds identical to what my partner accuses me of. These perceptions are impossible to shake no matter the contrary evidence. In fact the person would rather ignore me than learn the truth.
So I identify with what I believe the character is struggling with in the film. I have no question about what I'm doing. My partner on the other hand has completely lost/never had faith after 30 years.
It's a tough spot to be in. Currently I'm discovering Jack Benny and there is a lot to learn.
It leaves such a lasting impression. I find myself remembering some pieces on many ocassions. With my kids, my projects, some aspect of self absorbedness on my own goals.
I think you have to see Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York" twice. I watched it the first time and knew it was a great film and that I had not mastered it. The second time because I needed to. The third time because I will want to. It will open to confused audiences and live indefinitely. A lot of people these days don't even go to a movie once. There are alternatives. It doesn't have to be the movies, but we must somehow dream. If we don't "go to the movies" in any form, our minds wither and sicken.
The Rehearsal (and Finding Frances) is with Synecdoche, New York in the bucket of "I didn't know art could do that". I was just in complete awe of what he did with with both of those.
Using founders of $1B+ companies is absolutely using outliers and is evaluating survivorship bias.
As it relates to this article, a $1B+ company generally has product market fit and the founder has taken $10M+ off the table, which is more than they would have made in a regular job over a ~10 year period. The authors concerns don't apply in that situation.
I'm not using "founders of $1B+ companies" as my set. I'm using "founders who are my friends" as the set and it happens to include a couple of $1b+ companies but the majority are not (yet!).
Pitbull ownership is a contentious subject and just overall a very shitty situation. I've seen a pitbull kill another dog and two other pitbulls attack children. That lead me to look at data, and while there is conflicting data, I walked away with the impression that pitbulls are disproportionately more dangerous and should not be kept as pets.
I agree that they should explored other options to see if the dog could have been given to another owner in an environment better suited for a pitbull. I don't know that one exists, but if you choose to own a pitbull, you hold that responsibility when you decide to disown it.
I'll add that pit bulls are banned in many countries because they are dangerous. Sure they are perfectly fine most of the time, but when they decide to attack there is little anyone can do to stop them, and it often results in death of other animals or humans. And sometimes they just attack for the fun of it, there are many documented cases of that.
You're actually proving the exact opposite of your initial claim, but at least you are now teasing out the confounding variables that actually explain this.
There is no significant causation related to a founder's marital status.
> Don’t be fooled, older founders have considerably more assets and a wealth of connections in their industry, as well as older more independent children. This offsets the wife and family effects.
> No, because there are a lot less older founders than younger ones. So when you extrapolate from the data it will seem that having a wife and kids is a negative for a founder’s chances of success.
These are the the confounding variables you were looking for. Older founders _are_ more successful and it has to do with, among other things, the experience and connections they have, and that people are more risk-averse as they start families.
_Coincidentally_, the likelihood of being married increases as one's age increases, which is why you see fewer but more successful founders at the ages they are more likely to be married.
I'm a founder that let starting a startup wreak massive havoc on his marriage. This shit is real.
My suggestion to anyone in a serious relationship that is starting a business:
Cofounders often layout an operating agreement when they start a company. A founder and their spouse should do the same: layout your expectations (time, money, opportunity costs, life responsibilities) and frequently have open and transparent conversations about if each party is still comfortable with the arrangement.
Hearing the author see his pivots and realizing he would cut off his arm before folding the company (hyperbole, I know) signals he is probably crossing the line of what would have been put in the operating agreement.
A good technical founder is forgoing $500k+ a year in comp for a high-percentage chance of nothing. That has an immense effect on a relationship. Watching a spouse who is that committed and failing has to be absolute hell.
It's easy to make this SWAG on the opportunity cost , but I'm not sure it's true. I've known a lot of technical founders, and probably more than half of them were psychologically incapable of staying in a cushy mid-six comp position at a big company, even when they had the chops. It's part of what drove them to do something else. Others were more driven than technically talented, and sometimes that works well.
The "why be a founder when you can get rich at a FAANG" narrative is a bit too reductive, and misses out that people do these things for a broader range of reasons that EV.
Similarly, I've met technical people who are far stronger than the median FAANG engineer, but would never work there, because they can't self-identify as someone who would take that job. You can just as easily say: "why do you work at save-the-world-little-co for peanuts when you could be making 700k at BigTechCo?"
Sometimes people do these things mostly because that's who they are, or who they see themselves. If you are in a relationship with someone like that, it's part of the package. Totally agree you should have a clear understanding of what that means, going into such a venture.
> half of them were psychologically incapable of staying in a cushy mid-six comp position at a big company, even when they had the chops. It's part of what drove them to do something else.
This is an incredibly good point. I, myself, left BigCo to launch aforementioned startup, and mentally, I was accepting that if went to zero (it did) at least I was spending the prime of my career doing what felt like the most meaningful thing I could be doing. I did not, however, create my recommended operating agreement or get the buy-in of my wife.
It's common in the US, too. I think that the history is:
"Pulling your leg" means that someone is deceiving you (either playfully or spitefully).
"Pull the other one" means that someone pulled your leg, and you are telling them that you noticed by informing them that you have another leg that can be pulled.
No, no it wouldn't. There are plenty of companies that play fair staying true to their roots. And then there are those that are forced to defend themselves from the cloud vendors. And then there are those that pull shenanigans like Docker & RedHat.
My point was that this particular company and product seems too slight to survive the onslaught of so much VC cash.
I don't disagree, but was there something in this post that suggested their monetization strategy was support and consulting? I do see they are going to be focused on "ethical monetization" but I have no idea what that means.
