Data science is a stupid buzzword. The ideal candidate knows enough about IT to massage data, the more the knows about the domain to investigate the better, and for sure some statistics. Most of all always do sanity checks .. does it make sense? Can it be? Is the data correct?
It is an art. Like writing awesome code, etc. practice, practice, and working with experienced people is key.
The smarter players measure and target accordingly. The rise of RTB and 3rd party companies or your own JS solutions let you cherry pick what you want, or you simply bid much lower (if at all) on traffic you consider not valuable.
This is mostly a problem for unsophisticated players and exaggerated hype originating from players that support tracking view ability, etc.
>This is mostly a problem for unsophisticated players
Aren't most customers of online ads unsophisticated users? The solution could of cause be to let a professional online ad company run your buying, but then you still don't know what they're doing with your money.
I believe that most of the people are running their online ad buys as if they where bus stops ads. That might be wrong to, but that's where the business needs to start.
Because many of us have to deal with required software that only runs on Windows, and there is no current alternative. It's 2015 and the Microsoft ecosystem is still very strong.
Well at this point, with OSX and their shitty graphics drivers (and I mean so shitty you install Windows and perf goes up), if you want to do any GPU intensive application, Windows still dominants. DirectX >>> OpenGL (although I'm looking forward to vulkan).
Are the OS X drivers really that bad in comparison to the windows drivers? Instinctively, I have a hard time believing that if only because the Linux drivers are so much worse than the OS X ones. :(
The proprietary linux drivers are not worse than the OSX ones. Only the open source ones (for obvious reasons. They have less insight into how the device hardware is architected).
If OSX let hardware vendors write drivers for OSX, they would be in much better shape. But Apple OS internals are pretty much nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Aah, the registry. Isn't it nice not having everything in a MySQL database with a PHP interface which regenerates configure files over your hand edited hanged? Or GUIs like network manager that make config files that can't be edited because they can't track manual edits?
A registry which gives a central place for configuration and enables group policies and central management?
A registry which allows ACLs on individual keys and sub trees, not just at the level of files.
A registry which has some notion of types.
Isn't it also nice that MS moved on a bit from the notion of drive letters with powershell providers, allowing you to console edit registry locations, active directory OUs, certificate service paths, and whatever you want in a FUSE style pluggable way, while keeping the usefulness of drive letters and unc paths and not trying to pretend a network drive is a subset of / on a local computer.
Linux environments don't even have a stable place to put SSL certificates or a stable format for them. Packages might use individual files, or a single concatenated file, or a Mozilla NSS database, might look in somewhere in /etc or need their own path configuring.
It's a mess, even if it was standard and all the files were base64 text versions, it would still be useless for human editing with text tools because humans can't process big chunks of base64 usefully. A certificate store and a PSdrive provider for it. Neat.
There are some things that have better standardization in Windows, but for every thing they get right, there's a half dozen that are horribly, horribly wrong.
They need to start setting fire to legacy "features" and moving into the future. Windows is great because of backwards compatibility, but it's also hobbled because of it.
Unless they want to be an OS for organizations that fear change and upgrade slowly, reluctantly, then they'll need to start cutting some of that baggage loose.
Not sure what you are getting at, there's no ad hominem involved. Windows commands have noisy output, so people who are only familiar with Windows anticipate that Unix users would have the same problems that they would, which simply isn't the case.
Well, if it's a problem which Windows programers have, then it's not in their imagination, right? But that's nitpicking.
The original article is about Powershell. So I could, for example, say that people who are only familiar with bash (etc.) wouldn't know that Powershell doesn't pipe text, but rather .NET objects. Hence one could go and do something awesome like
... and get all the running processes that take up more than 10MB of physical memory and are neatly sorted by one of the columns. And not even once did I grep.
Your argument is basically that Unix is better, because Unix shells aren't CMD.EXE, which is absolutely true.
Shockingly, Powershell isn't CMD.EXE also.
I may have erred on the exact name of the logical fallacy, but it doesn't mean that there is no fallacy: valid views discarded based on the blind assumption of Unix's infallibility. Feels like it's 1999.
You said parse and pray in bash, don't be a jackass. Similarly, why even say that my argument is that Unix is better because it's not CMD.EXE when you know that's not remotely true, or that I assume Unix's infallibility (ridiculous). You're dishonest and not interested in a real discussion, so continue to enjoy your reinvented Smalltalk machine in peace (there's a reason nobody uses them even though they did more nifty tricks than Powershell ever dreamed of).
How could I be interested in any kind of discussion, when you don't care to see the difference between Unix and Unix shells?
And I don't see how you in anyway progressed the comparison of bash and Powershell with your comment. But go ahead, call me a jackass some more. Maybe that will help?
Iceland is a country worth investigating when it comes to hosting.