Apparently for a while their internal tech org was a number of fiefdoms with huge number of contractors and no central vision. They have changed that post-bankruptcy, bringing in serious operators in the exec team building the org, product and culture from scratch.they are hiring product, data and ml folks. Please dm me if interested in working on this, happy to connect
I dont have the source at hand, but soviets also preffered republicans to the left, since they could always make a dral with republicans while the lwft was too ideological.
Depends on what do you mean by the ‘left’ bolsheviks often viewed social-democratic and (to a lesser extent) liberal parties as their greatest threats. They were all appealing to the same demographics but were diametrically opposed on certain core points (democracy, free speech, political oppression etc.) making any real cooperation impossible.
The Weimar republic was a great example of that, the liberal/socialist government which was in power during it’s entire lifetime was so unstable and eventually collapsed because a significant proportion of the electorate continued voting for the bolsheviks. They wouldn’t even cooperate to prevent the far-right from coming to power (of course it’s not like they had a choice, moderate voters would have immediately shifted to the right if the socialists tried working with communists).
So it’s not that surprising. Stalin had no issue working with Hitler and supplying Germany with raw material which were necessary for their conquest of France (during the period western communist parties suddenly became rabidly pro-nazi..) until all of that blew up in his face…
Of course that was already quite different in the 60s and 70s after the Soviet were no longer as focused on ideological purity (and mass murder by extension).
To be honest, the other european powers (France, but especially the UK) also had a big trust issue with Stalin, and provably had a big role in making the unthinkable (the communist-nazi alliance) happen.
Stalin spent the last few years murdering millions of people. Without the benefit of hindsight Hitler clearly seemed like the more benign options prior to 1939..
I don't think this factored into Western distrust. The West had sided with White Russians and against Bolsheviks since forever, way before any purges or Holodomor or whatnot.
It's interesting that Stalin tried to get the West's help against Hitler before he giving up and making a truce with Germany to buy time.
Keep in mind that Germany was close and Hitler had stated he intended to expand eastwards towards Russia and he had declared that "Bolshevik Jews" were the ultimate enemy of Germany. If Stalin felt the Soviet Union wasn't ready for that fight, it makes sense that he would try to stall it. (Yes, then there's Poland and all that jazz. History is complicated).
Sad as it may be, I don’t think this has ever been a real problem for other countries. In the case of Stalin, the issue was lending credibility to socialism.
Herr Hitler looked like a respectable man because he was very much against socialism, sending those filthy reds to a lager.
Weimar Germany was mostly dominated (to the extent that it could've been, being such a mess and of course they never had an outright majority) by the socialist party. They hated the bolsheviks as much as(if not more) anyone, even going as far to having them shot and thrown into canals...
Arguably without Stalin and USSR supporting German communists most of their voters (~10% of the country) would've shifted to the Socialists party. Strengthening the Socialist-Liberal-Christian Democrat coalition and making it harder for far-right parties to take power.
UK had a socialist government between 1929 and 1931 and the Labor prime minister continued running the government until 1935 supported by the Conservatives after the Labour party split (and unlike today the Labour party considered themselves to be actual socialists). Socialists also had significant influence in the French republic as well.
> Herr Hitler looked like a respectable man because he was very much against socialism
Or rather the French and the British were much more preoccupied in dealing with their internal issues during the Great Depression to pay too much attention to what was happening in Germany.
Also The British prime minister at the time when first came to power and for the 4-5 years after that was a self-avowed socialist. Which would have made it a bit weird if what you're saying was right.
> In the case of Stalin, the issue was lending credibility to socialism
Why are you equating Bolshevism/Communism with Socialism? The bolsheviks overthrew a Socialist government to come to power after all and suppressed all socialist parties whenever and wherever they could.
You have a point when you notice that I lazily used “socialism”, I did mean the bolsheviks and the communist revolutionaries.
I think the rest wouldn’t change much: the things you mention don’t have much to do with having moral scruples against Stalin’s mass murders. It seems to me that the main reason was still “we don’t do business with bolsheviks”. Of course the main reason is not the only one, and had the other powers realized who was leading Germany they maybe would have been more open to Stalin’s requests…
> I think the rest wouldn’t change much: the things you mention don’t have much to do with having moral scruples against Stalin’s mass murders.
I don't agree ( if you also include Lenin's mass murders). Of course a lot of it has to do with the fear the the Bolsheviks would do the same in their countries in they ever came to power.
> It seems to me that the main reason was still “we don’t do business with bolsheviks
Main reason of what? Poland had some pretty good reasons to not want any soviet troops in it's territory.
> would have been more open to Stalin’s requests…
Like allowing him to have Eastern Europe? Well the Anglo-Polish treaty even had a secret clause saying that it only applied in case Germany specifically attacked Poland and Britain was not obliged to join the war in case the Soviets invaded.
Again it's not that relevant. It's highly unlikely that Germany could have defeated France in 1940 without Soviet support. Germany had almost no oil and many other vital resources left after the invasion of Poland (it imported most of it's oil from America). So the Soviets simply had to stay out it. They chose to support Germany instead. I really don't see how anything that the allies did could be considered to be more foolish and/or shortsighted than the German–Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940.
Amongst other things Germany would've entirely ran out of grain, rubber, manganese and oil by the Autumn of 1941 or much earlier without the imports form the USSR but Stalin had a better plan which resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths..
> the liberal/socialist government which was in power during it’s entire lifetime was so unstable and eventually collapsed because a significant proportion of the electorate continued voting for the bolsheviks
Seems to still be the case today: the far left fighting with the moderate left.
Well, a good question is what are you offering the senior applicants, other than (hopefully competitive) money for their time. Are there interesting problems to solve? Is there potential for growth?are they going to have a say in the technical direction and strategy? How about the business side?
Think of better ways to formulate the opportunity, your pitch, and ways to stand out in the market
To further add detail, the un resolution is focused sqarely on kelbajar region, which in any negotiation logic (madrid, kazan, etc) was slated to return to Azerbajan once the status of Karabakh was determined
> Calls for the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbajar district and other recently occupied areas
853:
> calls on the withdrawal of the occupying forces from the district of Agdam and other recently occupied areas of the Republic of Azerbaijan
874:
> Reaffirms sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic
> calls for the preservation of the ceasefire, cessation of hostilities and withdrawal of forces from recently occupied districts of the Republic of Azerbaijan
884:
> calls for the "withdrawal of occupying forces" from the Zangelan district and the city of Goradiz
I'm sorry in advance for perpetuating the flamewar.
Disclaimer: Turkish here. I do not deny the Armenian Genocide, or think it was right for Azerbaijan to reclaim Karabakh with this way.
You are falling to the same fallacy as the Turkish government:
* Claiming Khojali massacre is a lie, disregarding the documented facts. Do not bring yourself down to the same level as genocide deniers; they will beat you with experience.
* The "they did that too" argument; as if any horrible act legitimizes the other one.
So, it makes a much better discussion if we all agree on documented facts and try to move forward from there (if there is any solution to move forward to). The "Armenian Genocide didn't happen" versus "Khojali Massacre didn't happen" discussion seems childish at this point, and it is not going to help either side in the long run.
Judt start doing it in your current role. Be the person who sees the end to end, knows how to deliver it, and show others how to do it. The person writing tickets probably is tired of doing that. Help him out. Make connections with business side. Explain to them the technical nuance in human terms. Work the role. Next time when recruiting, tell your story. The title doesnt matter - principal engineer, tech lead, requirements ninja, all the same
My partner and I capitalized on dropping rents and just moved into a large 1br with amazing views and garage in SF, for a marginal increase in rent. I am hoping that with tech moving out and commercial real estate getting cheaper, the new generation of artists will come to the city, bringing with them the weird culture, the creatives, the experimental. Its not the first boom of this town and after every bust the city heals itself to something even better.
I run a team of data engineers, and over the years there has been a lot of confusion between what is a data scientist and what is a data engineer.
I draw the divide in that data scientists discover the features and the methodology, while data engineers take these insights to production. One can argue that data scientists themselves could do that, but this is constrained by the domain expertise on tools(be that the depth of spark internals or whatever) and the number of hours in the day. It's hard enough to deal with the variance of the models to deal with the variance of the system.
A good data engineer is a unicorn.I define three central competencies for a data engineer:
be a good coder: quality, maintainability, efficiency,
know how to explore the data: SQL, R, just eye the damn data feed,
know enough data science to interface with scientists
For a data engineer it's okay not to know probability theory and stats that much, but its a must for a data scientist( running TensorFlow out of the box with no understanding of the underlying math doesn't make a data scientist, just a common butcher).
I've seen the role you're describing (taking insights to production) move to be described as a "Machine Learning Engineer", whereas Data Engineering is closer to the front end of the process, productionising the _data_ gathering and organisation.
I really liked this diagram, it matches well with how I've seen roles advertised lately https://twitter.com/workera_/status/1215081851577962497
that sounds like a non-canonical use of clickhouse. Wouldnt a good RDBMS be a better fit for invoice data? This is on the surface, of course, really interested in what is this invoice data like, and what queries are you trying to run on them.
