Google sheets is useful for basic tasks. But as a power tool for complex models etc. it pales in comparison to excel. Not to mention that keyboard shortcuts are not the same which makes everything take significantly longer.
Agreed. Google sheets feels great initially. Then you go to do that thing that you do in Excel, and...you look for it, and it seems like a basic omission, so you figure you just missed it, and Google around for it, and no, it's just not there.
Even silly little things, like the fact that Sheets doesn't have an indent function, which makes it harder to neatly format financial data. I think the accepted workaround is to manually put spaces in front of every single row you need indented.
What we'd do - as the layer between engineering and upper management - was to do as much aggregation as necessary using notebooks and at the end run the "export to google sheets" call (thin layer on top of google apis). That would give the recipient some kind of control and allow them to feel the data and twist and turn it their own way, while not having to do the "big data" python/SQL stuff themselves.
I am at a new company now and I have yet to figure out how to create the "export to onedrive/excel" command. Google libraries to google sheets seemed so much more competent and well built. (But maybe i am biased...)
One can customize the ribbon at the top for must used functions, which can make Excel such a fast tool to use compared to Google Sheets or even Excel for Mac (speaking as a Windows user).
If I had a big Excel project to do, and I had the choice of 1/2 day on Excel (Windows) vs. a full day with Google Sheets or Excel (Mac), I would pick the 1/2 day with Excel (Windows).
The keyboard shortcuts improve productivity so much. Yeah, as another said it’s amazing when I try to use Excel on a Mac how much I evidently depend upon the shortcuts in normal use. They’re all different on the Mac version, and I can only take so much of it before I just email myself what I was working on and pick it back up on the PC. Seems like an easy thing for MS to reconcile but I don’t want to give up my keyboard mapping, and I’m sure the Mac Excel guy doesn’t either. Nice feature would be to choose what shortcut layout you wanted despite platform.
I removed the F1 from a keyboard so that I don't misfire when going for F2, resulting in the dreaded 'Help' window that you have to use a mouse to click out of.
Ctrl+Space, C used to work for closing the Help window until recent versions. Unfortunately that doesn’t work anymore, the only solution is to use a VBA macro bound to a keyboard shortcut. At least in return the keyboard focus now remains in Excel instead of switching to the Help dialog.
This is true of GSuite generally. So long as you need fairly basic functionality (which is all a lot of people need), its simplicity is a virtue and it works well. I prefer it to Microsoft Office 99% of the time. (Though I sometimes need Office for interoperability as well.)
I used to sometimes have to run massive spreadsheets. But these days, I mostly use it for things like personal activity tracking.
Composer is a no-code platform for automated investment management. We focus on retail investors who are unhappy with the current suite of tools at their disposal, to help them make smarter investment decisions. Composer allows you to build, test, deploy, and manage automated investing strategies - all without writing a line of code.
We are currently funded and pre-launch, with an expected launch this quarter. As a customer obsessed team we have been validating our vision every step of the way. We write code in Clojure(Script) and are looking for full-stack developer who is very comfortable in Clojure(Script). The person we hire will be a thought-leader in the company and will be expected to demonstrate a high level of agency. Please respond to this thread if interested.
If we consider Doordash's approach to be similar to Amazon's then companies such as Chownnow and Ritual are more equivalent to Shopify. They want to arm mom and pop restaurants with the tools to enable delivery without the hefty commissions and fees. I know that personally I don't want to live in a world dominated by chain restaurants and sub-standard options simply because they are the only ones with power to negotiate favourable terms with Doordash etc.
Very early in someone's career most people's job interest is more a factor of environment, salary, perceived social status etc. than it is of true interest. This is also because at that stage you don't really know what interests you since academic life is so different from a real job or career. A clear example of this is how many students 10 yrs ago claimed to be interested in a career in investment banking, consulting etc. vs how many actually satisfied investment bankers there are.
Honestly, the dirty truth is that many investment bankers who actually make it are very satisfied with their jobs. By make it, I mean they are still in the profession after 3-5 years. We would like to believe that ultimately the bankers are the ones losing out, but the combination of massive income, very high social status and with it great choices for a spouse, interesting and globally impactful work, etc. The list goes on, but you have to break through the lower ranks, which arent really "investment banking" and are more like a job interview for the real work.
What I mean to say is that often times we like to convince ourselves that superior roles are actually inferior, but are blind to just how much better those people have it.
I'm not so sure about this. The work does not seem to end in such professions.
You feel lucky if you can get a bit of sleep and eat three meals in a day. Being content with such a profession requires making no personal plans even on weekends and being ready to sacrifice anything. The work dictates your life.
Once you stop fighting it, it gets easier. I think that's what you learn after 3-5 years.
I Googled "investment banker marriage" for fun and it seems they are more of rare and you easily end up choosing between being fired or divorce. Married who prioritize relationship seems to be seen as looser.
Plus sounds like the spouse that is half with that setup tends to be someone who wants your paycheck more then you (since you are never around anyway).
I mean, they might be happy and enjoying that. Just the great spouse thing is less likely to be part of picture.
Women go for status the same way men go for youth and beauty. If you increase your status suddenly you'll have more options in the dating market.
It seems petty shallow from both sides and there are some women who don't care that much about status and some men who don't care that much about looks, but generally it holds true remarkably well.
It's also terrible for women who enjoy their peak power in their twenties in a way all but the very highest status men will never know, but then youth and beauty fade and it's all downhill from there. On the other side, low status men in middle age are basically persona non grata, but men always theoretically have something under their control to improve their lot.
In both cases hopefully the relationship becomes less about what attracted you in the first place and more about the friendship and shared life.
I did not talked about what women go after. I came to this conclusion from reading about what investment bankers themselves say. It was not about who is shallow or who is deep. You can be super shallow and still end up more attracted to new guy that is actually around, more then to partner that brings money but is never around.
> In both cases hopefully the relationship becomes less about what attracted you in the first place and more about the friendship and shared life.
Yeah, but there is no friendship if you two don't see each other at all. There is no shared life between investment banker and his wife. There can be attraction part, due to good look and money and social status as you say. But exactly this friendship and shared life is something they cant really have.
> It's also terrible for women who enjoy their peak power in their twenties in a way all but the very highest status men will never know
Google's Meet has improved considerably and most importantly it comes free with G-Suite. They are also pushing it quite hard as every calendar invite has a Google Meet link automatically included.
The reason that people went with Zoom is "because it worked." As other products improve it's hard to see what Zoom's moat is and why we should continue to pay for it.
> The reason that people went with Zoom is "because it worked." As other products improve it's hard to see what Zoom's moat is and why we should continue to pay for it.
Ironically, I would say Google Meet defines "it just works" for me way more than does Zoom.
Joining a Google Meet:
1. Enter the URL in your browser.
2. Click join.
Joining a Zoom:
1. Enter the URL in your browser.
2. Accept launching an executable.
3. Watch a window or two pop up and close.
4. Decide if you're using video or not.
5. Watch more windows pop up and close.
6. See the main Zoom window appear.
7. Decide if you're using audio or not.
Perhaps part of my beef with Zoom is how many times its window shuffling steals focus during the several seconds needed to join a meeting. If I'm trying to get work done while waiting for a meeting to start, the focus stealing is very obnoxious.
"You don't need a Google Account to participate in Meet video meetings. However, if you don’t have a Google Account, the meeting organizer or someone from the organization must grant you access to the meeting."
It has to do with supporting the winners that are actually going to return money to your investors. They are refusing to fall prey to sunk cost fallacy, which is a good thing.
Had the same issue. Found customer response times extremely slow, especially for a live chat app! Additionally, the way they broke down their pricing made no sense to me. At the end I wasn't sure what the incremental cost of adding features I wanted would be.
Shipping features without talking to users is a death knell. You end up with an bloated product that serves no one particularly well.
It sounds like all the other problems are just derivatives of this because all of the time was spent head down and "working" and no time spent being strategic, creative or learning what your customer base actually wants.
It would interesting to see some data on CEOs that were fired, at what stage and the eventual outcome for the company. My guess is that firing a founder-CEO before the Series B stage rarely leads to a positive long-term outcome.
