Notice how the article load_penguins() example starts neatly after all the messy parts of data science are done and stops right before the next pain starts.
It lives in a sterile, idealized world.
Python is a great language for data science in practice because it turns out data science is also:
- gluing a lot of data sources
- cleaning up a ton of terribly shaped data
- validation and error handling
- I/O, networking, and format conversion
- emboarding non-programmers into programming
- wrapping a lot of compiled languages' libs or plugging system
- prototyping stuff and exposing that prototype to some people
- turning prototypes into more permanent projects
And it turns out Python and its ecosystem are good at those while remaining decent at the other things.
There are other languages excellent at some of those, or some of the other things, but rarely good at most. And because humanity is vast, diverse, and constantly renewing, being the second best at those is eventually always winning.
Because whoever you are, you will be annoyed at not having the best experience at task X. But you would be mortified if you had the worst experience at doing task Y and Z. And task X, Y, and Z change depending on who you ask.
And you want to get things done, while days have 24 hours.
As usual, to understand the Python phenomenon, you have to see the whole picture. Not your little corner of the bubble. Not the ideal world in your head either. Life is not a maths problem with a clearly laid out premise and an elegant answer.
That's the same debate about why PHP won the web in 2000 no matter the size of the spaghetti plate, why Windows stayed used for so long despite it being terrible, why people keep using iphones after all the abuses, etc. There is more to it than the use case you have every day. People have needs you don't haven't thought about.
So it's not "let the language war begin". It's, "dude, get more experience, go work with accountants, ngos, govs and logistic chains, go work in china, africa and south america, go from a startup to schools to corporate, satisfy the geeks, the artists and the business people, than we'll talk".
When you squash merge almost everything, only the last messages and messages you let to yourself at checkpoints are important. JJ has it right, a message should be optin, not optout.
Online gambling, most of which is about good ol’ money laundering, and thepiratebay seems to not censor their ads at all, so you may get all kinds of scams and malware spread via ads.
I dunno, but torrenting sites gladly use networks that use malicious redirects, especially on mobile. I also saw ads specifically for gambling companies that were known bad actors, at least to me, given what people were behind them. Won't give you examples, it was years ago. It was like that, you go to a site to get your Linux ISOs, and it's plastered in certain company's ads. Wham, in a month you get investigative articles about that very company's owners and who they are tied to.
It's also of note that on Facebook I don't get many online casino ads, I get mostly reMarkable ads, there was one from Roli when they launched their new instrument, and others were mostly advertising stuff to me that I already bought elsewhere. I think it might be because I had banned the first dozen of such ads, and they stopped coming.
Same. Also I probably get more Russia-sponsored content from Meta than I can see on Rutracker. The internet, lead by big tech, has long passed the point where a banner advertising online gambling could be seen as something outrageous
Not but you can be quite sure somewhere deep inside the TOS there is a line saying their telemetry swallow your soul. If not, it will be added. It's google, that's what they do.
Looks great, won't touch since they are probably going
to do a switcheroo or a shutdown as usual.
And of course I would need to look at all the implications of spying, being locked out of google account and absence of support that are google amo. No time for that. Not for them.
The question is how much are people willing to pay for this trouble. Usually industries that stick to very old system did so because they didn't want to invest resources in the migration.
> Usually industries that stick to very old system did so because they didn't want to invest resources in the migration.
That can be the case, but there's also a lot of instance where it's not a matter of not wanting to invest, but that being stuck on an older system is the only option until a larger component also goes EOL or dies and cannot be repaired.
I see this all the time in manufacturing. User control interfaces that run on Windows XP or 2k. Machine is still great, can still get parts & repair it, but the software has long ago since stopped being supported. The manufacturer isn't going to spend 6 figures to replace a machine that hasn't fully depreciated yet.
In these instances, you just air gap it off and you're fine.
reply