|
I should learn SQL. People keep talking about Power Query now, should I learn that too?
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Kin posted:I'd say you should be going further and using XLOOKUP and Tables. Doesn't sound like good job security to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:25
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:I should learn SQL. Learn SQL first, then you'll be able to make much better use of ETL (Power Query or Knime or whichever is most popular in your field)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:32
|
|
|
Excel is a phenomenal arcane engine that powers fundamental reality and I still to this day get shocked when I see people who use it every day who have never heard of a pivot table. But now I use ETL tools and feel like I've slipped into another dimension Job wise - the worst thing about your boss knowing you can actually use excel who has some knowledge of their own, leads them to doing things like telling senior executives they don't need to buy a training matrix software because Aipsh can do it all in excel. He was right tho, but he laughed when he told me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:33
|
|
|
Crymetimeboys posted:There seems to be a strong push amongst the right-wing media commentariat to bring Boris Johnson back as PM. Someone needs to write a counter article "The met is racist and misogynist, we need to bring back Wayne Couzens to fix things"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:34
|
|
|
I love how the vast majority of offices are still as mystified by basic excel functions as 1990, at least in my industry. https://youtu.be/kOO31qFmi9A
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/stavvers/status/1581941992468099073?s=20&t=p_fK-Xj3J6BJpgpQiXWt6A The Met love to lie about violent street protestors beating them up when actually they don't know how to lift things properly
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:39
|
|
|
Tomberforce posted:I love how the vast majority of offices are still as mystified by basic excel functions as 1990, at least in my industry. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:41
|
|
|
peanut- posted:It's where Salesforce charge your company £50k a year to do the same thing as your CRM spreadsheet in ways that are even more confusing and disappointing I feel this, we use Salesforce at my job and it's a total crock of poo poo. I love when two distinct datasets can't be referenced together for completely arbitrary reasons!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:42
|
|
|
Tomberforce posted:I love how the vast majority of offices are still as mystified by basic excel functions as 1990, at least in my industry. Lmao the number of meetings I've went into with a back of the fag packet forecast done 10 mins before is countless. This is a relatable advert.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:45
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Talking at length 'bout databases and spreadsheets! At a bare minimum it needs to handle a fairly complex account system that would be best stored as a relational database (users have many accounts that belong to many groups and all need many status flags), send pre-set emails with mail merge based on search criteria, read data directly from web forms, and ideally machine-read uploaded documents. I'm a decent C#/Python developer so I can handle something that's code-based, within reason. Is there *anything* on the market that can handle this, ideally out-of-the-box? At the moment I've built a fairly nifty spreadsheet that can read returned DOCX/PDF files to auto-populate the "database" and send emails with one click, but it's still loving Excel and only one person can modify it at a time and I'm not allowed to even think about setting up a database or doing something a manager can't understand. There has to be a better way to do this. quote:It's where Salesforce charge your company £50k a year to do the same thing as your CRM spreadsheet in ways that are even more confusing and disappointing
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:47
|
|
|
Weeto's hit the big time! https://twitter.com/jameelajamil/status/1581805770487697408
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:56
|
|
|
lol, they're so hosed they're even talking about undoing the energy scheme, the one measure that is generally agreed to have been at least half-decent. You know, that thing they've literally been wheeling out to hide behind as a response to every question about the budget for the past 3 weeks... https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1581945801479446528
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 10:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I am not sure that's comparable. Priests get a job, ready access to victims, and security for their time investment. Trans women just get poo poo. Even from a theoretical actual TERF (as opposed to FART) perspective, the idea makes no sense, as a man pretending to be a woman would be trading the most powerful identity in favor of the weakest one, for no reason at all, seeing as men are perfectly able to be sexually abusive for years with no consequence within our current society. And if they want an extra layer of security they just join the police force.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:02
|
|
|
Yeah it's telling that that's one that she doesn't mention despite there being less of a barrier to entry than the medical profession or priesthood and yet that keeps doing sex offenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:05
|
|
|
People need to stop interacting with smackheads like Weetman at all, it's a complete waste of time
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:06
|
|
|
Runcible Cat posted:And if they want an extra layer of security they just join the police force. Guavanaut posted:Yeah it's telling that that's one that she doesn't mention despite there being less of a barrier to entry than the medical profession or priesthood and yet that keeps doing sex offenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:07
|
|
|
What with oval office reversing the cut to corporation tax, has anyone reminded him he recently campaigned to become leader with a promise to cut that 19% rate to 15%? https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/flashback-hunt-demands-15p-corporation-tax e: typed 'income' instead of 'corporation' fuctifino fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:09
|
|
|
This will almost certainly never happen but it would be very funny https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1581940552202743809?t=OVomA3kW5UoGxdTJWFUs7w
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:11
|
|
|
Loonytoad Quack posted:lol, they're so hosed they're even talking about undoing the energy scheme, the one measure that is generally agreed to have been at least half-decent. You know, that thing they've literally been wheeling out to hide behind as a response to every question about the budget for the past 3 weeks... For all the poo poo that “means-testing” gets, usually because it’s an administrative headache and could leave deserving beneficiaries in the lurch, in principle shouldn’t the left be on board with making this scheme more targeted/progressive? Spending less public money on the rich is not something I will criticise just because it’s the Tories doing it. Although of course in a few hours I’m sure I’ll learn there is some grotesque catch. Bonus content - inspiration from Patel: https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581922628138242048
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:14
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:This will almost certainly never happen but it would be very funny No, "funny" is the correlation to that chart which says that at the lowest reasonable expectations, the Tories would actually be fourth behind the Lib Dems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:16
|
|
|
Ideally means testing would make sure everyone gets what they need, in practice it always excludes those who need it and is generally used to destroy support systems utterly. It's like saying in theory we should support the police because they keep people safe from dangerous criminals, in actuality no that isn't what they do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:19
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:For all the poo poo that “means-testing” gets, usually because it’s an administrative headache and could leave deserving beneficiaries in the lurch, in principle shouldn’t the left be on board with making this scheme more targeted/progressive? Spending less public money on the rich is not something I will criticise just because it’s the Tories doing it. Although of course in a few hours I’m sure I’ll learn there is some grotesque catch. Oh wow you love means testing what a completely surprising turn of events
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1581947841626640384
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:20
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:For all the poo poo that “means-testing” gets, usually because it’s an administrative headache and could leave deserving beneficiaries in the lurch, in principle shouldn’t the left be on board with making this scheme more targeted/progressive? Spending less public money on the rich is not something I will criticise just because it’s the Tories doing it. Although of course in a few hours I’m sure I’ll learn there is some grotesque catch. This is the thing about means testing - from a purely economic point of view it makes sense, but both practically (the cost of means testing) and politically (it's alot easier to not care about cuts that don't affect you) it's not worth it. And I'm sure it'll end up with all pensioners automatically getting a discount but every working person who isn't on UC having to pay full wack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:20
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:This will almost certainly never happen but it would be very funny On one hand this is really depressing because Labour with any sort of comfortable majority are going to destroy civil liberties, it's the only thing they like more than having no principles, but on the other it'd be loving hilarious. What a dilemma. LOL that the means testing lover has logged on. No, supporting universal welfare is the socialist position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:21
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:And if you invite a school friend who it turns out has nits round for a sleepover and then use the same pillow the next night you can catch them then too. Source: my niece.  Now you've got me itching all over and i've never had headlice!I did get scabies years ago and the closest i have ever been to a mental breakdown was when i was dealing with them (i truly may or may not have lost the plot at that time  ).It takes a tube and a half of Lyclear (45g) to fully cover a fat man head to foot, had to do that four times. Not to mention replacing clothes bedding and hoovering well travelled areas every single day to keep it contained. All because i slept next to a damp wall which led to a damp duvet and over time a perfect environment for them to multiply, in a dry & well aired place that doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:24
|
|
|
The way to "means test" welfare is to just tax rich people. It's more effective to have a simple system taking money out of their pockets while also putting money in, rather than trying to determine the exact breakpoints for welfare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:26
|
|
|
The thing about the rich is that there's so few of them that giving them money they don't need doesn't actually waste more than means testing would cost, and they're so rich that they're not going to do anything with that money that they weren't already doing. And having a means testing system at all, rather than making things universal on principle, inherently divides people into 'deserving' and 'undeserving', which, as we've seen, is a screw the right wing love turning to squash more and more people out of the 'deserving' category whether it's justified or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:30
|
|
|
You have a universal system so that the people who pay the most get to see something is good and piss and moan less. Think that we'd have even the shell of the NHS left if it was only used by the poor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:35
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:Oh wow you love means testing what a completely surprising turn of events I don’t know how my hedged statement where I acknowledge there will probably be some horrible catch really shows my love for means testing. I just don’t love transfers of public funds to the rich. OwlFancier posted:Ideally means testing would make sure everyone gets what they need, in practice it always excludes those who need it and is generally used to destroy support systems utterly. Yeah, and this will be the catch. But could there not be some light-touch, imperfect way to exclude people at the very top of the income distribution from receiving it? Like a presumption that “you are eligible unless” rather than “you are not eligible unless”. E.g. taxpayers who pay 40% on any of their income, or, if too many deserving will slip through the cracks that way and we want to be even more risk averse, those who pay 45% on any of their income?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Mr_John_Oxley/status/1581951723866054658?s=20&t=dgmkpadXXwo1zF90eER7Kw
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:For all the poo poo that “means-testing” gets, usually because it’s an administrative headache and could leave deserving beneficiaries in the lurch, in principle shouldn’t the left be on board with making this scheme more targeted/progressive? Spending less public money on the rich is not something I will criticise just because it’s the Tories doing it. Although of course in a few hours I’m sure I’ll learn there is some grotesque catch. If you are actually worried that government is giving too much money to rich people, then just make the tax system more progresive. Much easier than trying to build a means testing system into every single government program. Do you want to means test libraries or roads? the NHS? That said, for the energy subsidy some sort of cap might make sense- there should be some incentives to reduce gas use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:39
|
|
|
Red Oktober posted:Doesn't sound like good job security to me. Funny thing is that (save for the XLOOKUP) I've been doing named tables for years, and no one has picked up on how much easier it is. It's like they're all stuck in their lazy way of using Pivot tables without realising they're clunky and a pain in the arse to configure sometimes. I sometimes think I've maybe missed some modern advancement given how simple and effective my approach has been, but I've yet to see anything as elegant. I work with semi large datasets that can be subdivided by smaller subsets (think one column = country, another = city). It's not possible to store all of this data in a database because sometimes the data is also broken down by hour and can need YoY comparisons. I've got folk in my office scrambling about trying to mash together loads of different exported data sets and figure out how it should look in a pivot. Instead, I basically create a mini database/dataset in a tab in excel (with date, country, city, KPIs, etc). Give it a name or something, then just create an output "view" of the data I want to send to people which is powered by sumifs. Building out the columns in the view is just a find and replace of 'fieldname1' for 'fieldname2'. If I'm feeling extra lazy, I create an external variable control list (different city names for example) and then once I've created one table it just gets duplicated 20 odd times and viola, you've got visibility of everything. Meanwhile my colleagues are swearing by horrible looking pivot tables while trying to get calculated fields to work right and jumping back and forth with dynamic filtering of the pivots to show different things. The only drawback to the sumifs approach is if it's an exceptionally large dataset (million rows plus) , it can take a while to churn through things. Power query might be the next step for that kind of stuff but I've never really got the hang of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:41
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The way to "means test" welfare is to just tax rich people. It's more effective to have a simple system taking money out of their pockets while also putting money in, rather than trying to determine the exact breakpoints for welfare. It's this. I couldn't care less if a struggling person gets £20 more than some uptight dork thinks they """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""deserve"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" - that money goes right back into the economy with multipliers anyway. Same reason the already-trivial level of """""""""""""""""""""fraud""""""""""""""""""""" in the benefit system literally doesn't matter. Halisnacks posted:shouldn’t the left be on board with making this scheme more targeted/progressive?  The """""""""""""""s indicate sarcasm
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:41
|
|
|
Shouldn't the *left* be on board with supporting Starmer and his Blairite cabinet as being better than the Tories?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:46
|
|
|
Crymetimeboys posted:Shouldn't the *left* be on board with supporting Starmer and his Blairite cabinet as being better than the Tories?  I know, but they're not better than the Tories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:48
|
|
|
Crymetimeboys posted:Shouldn't the *left* be on board with supporting Starmer and his Blairite cabinet as being better than the Tories? In what way are they going to be better? e:f;b
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:50
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:But could there not be some light-touch, imperfect way to exclude people at the very top of the income distribution from receiving it? Like a presumption that “you are eligible unless” rather than “you are not eligible unless”. E.g. taxpayers who pay 40% on any of their income, or, if too many deserving will slip through the cracks that way and we want to be even more risk averse, those who pay 45% on any of their income? Means testing always either drives some wedge between 'deserving/undeserving poor' or 'those bastards/our stuff'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Crymetimeboys posted:Shouldn't the *left* be on board with supporting Starmer and his Blairite cabinet as being better than the Tories? this is a 'choose what type of hammer we use to smash your dick & balls' kind of decision
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:54
|
|
