sed is the only editor.Anywhere I was tempted to use one of them?
the thing about Perl is, you can make it look however you want. My perl code is a work of art, lovely to look upon.
All python looks the same, because it has to. And it all looks like ass.
The only editor is nano. I've heard rumors others exist, but why?
I'm not sure if you are agreeing or not.using nano to write code is literal hipster bullshit. why?!
lmao hipster bullshit. Its the basic, bare bones, no frills, no gay stuff, editor.using nano to write code is literal hipster bullshit. why?!
vim, oh yeah, I love text editors that assume by default when I open a text file that I dont want to edit it. "Hmmm lets make the default state not to edit the file, but after they enter a keyboard shortcut they can edit it! brilliant"I can see vim or emacs... nano means you went out of your way to use a shitty editor.
Literally the only time I use nano or vim is when I have to edit some code I wrote in something else and have hosted on a linux box somewhere running on a schedule.lmao hipster bullshit. Its the basic, bare bones, no frills, no gay stuff, editor.
Its the fucking opposite of hipster bullshit. Its the standard traditional fit blue jeans of the text editors.
I'm pretty sure yall are trolling now, criticizing nano.
Lol so you learned Perl with nano and fight that choice to the death... You must be unemployed.vim, oh yeah, I love text editors that assume by default when I open a text file that I dont want to edit it. "Hmmm lets make the default state not to edit the file, but after they enter a keyboard shortcut they can edit it! brilliant"
Cause when I want to view a file without editing it, I use a text editor. Cause that makes sense.
Vim is for people who dislike themselves and need a way to pay penance one extra click at a time. Fuck vim more than all the other text editors put together.
the only time nano is appropriate is for changing some sort of setting on a config file. You would have to be retarded to use it for a large scale project.lmao hipster bullshit. Its the basic, bare bones, no frills, no gay stuff, editor.
Its the fucking opposite of hipster bullshit. Its the standard traditional fit blue jeans of the text editors.
I'm pretty sure yall are trolling now, criticizing nano.
If you show management that you can actually quantify return on marketing dollars, they might start to hold the marketers accountable. What you're doing is a massive threat to them.This week the marketing people got wind of it and completely shit on the project and told me to delete everything I had.
I didn't and told the marketing director to fuck off, its not her personal Google Analytics account. She told me that "Marketing needs to stay in Marketing." Or something like that.
The fuck?
Why aren't they held accountable in the first place? I would think leadership and at least finance would question massive expenditures for marketing and just taking the marketing team's word for it.If you show management that you can actually quantify return on marketing dollars, they might start to hold the marketers accountable. What you're doing is a massive threat to them.
Have any of you ever had to deal with marketing teams? I work for the business in my current position and create applications, tools, data, that directly supports the business side of the company. With the exception of marketing. The marketing org is ran like North Korea. Nobody at the company has any insight to what they are doing at all. Which surprised me as marketing even controls their own budgets entirely and doesn't have to explain expenditures in financial reporting either. I asked a friend of mine in management somewhere else and he said that all marketing teams are like that.
Recently I attempted to put together some on-demand data models from our Google Analytics accounts with the intent of creating something that could tie our GA efforts (adwords and whatever) to sales within our sales pipeline. Like seeing how much marketing spend went into getting a single lead to sale or booking compared to our other lead sources. I made a bit of headway on this, but it was kind of a pet project. I demoed it to the finance team and they thought it was cool. This week the marketing people got wind of it and completely shit on the project and told me to delete everything I had.
I didn't and told the marketing director to fuck off, its not her personal Google Analytics account. She told me that "Marketing needs to stay in Marketing." Or something like that.
The fuck?
Why aren't they held accountable in the first place? I would think leadership and at least finance would question massive expenditures for marketing and just taking the marketing team's word for it.
It's the difference between "brand marketing" and "performance marketing". One thing brand marketers are really great at selling is their big plans to management. "Oh, you can't possibly boil all that we do down to a since metric! Our biz-dev wining-and-dining is building business relationships that will benefit us for years to come! It's not only market-share, it's share-of-mind!" Of course, there's a bit of potential truth in all that, but watching the terror in their eyes when you mention quantifying return on marketing spend really tells you what you need to know about them. The best can live in both worlds of course, but we all know how rare the best of anything is.Sounds like the director of a Ponzi scheme department. For a marketing director not to know their CPC and not even want to know blows my mind.
I used to consult on branding and the C Suite marketing folks I interacted with were really dumb.
I can honestly say I don't understand this mentality.It's the difference between "brand marketing" and "performance marketing". One thing brand marketers are really great at selling is their big plans to management. "Oh, you can't possibly boil all that we do down to a since metric! Our biz-dev wining-and-dining is building business relationships that will benefit us for years to come! It's not only market-share, it's share-of-mind!" Of course, there's a bit of potential truth in all that, but watching the terror in their eyes when you mention quantifying return on marketing spend really tells you what you need to know about them. The best can live in both worlds of course, but we all know how rare the best of anything is.
They might. Without knowing anything else about the situation, it just depends on if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt or not. If their marketing people are doing a great job, there could still be valid reasons for their reaction. You can use the same data to shape the narrative a lot of different ways, and they obviously want to be in control of that narrative (not necessarily bad, you wouldn't really want the marketers trying to convince your VP to change your tech stack for example). There might be perfectly reasonable strategic reasons that they're losing their ass trying to capture specific bits of marketshare. There may be plenty of campaigns that are just there to essentially "buy data", and they don't want to be judged on a shitty roi for what is essentially research.I can honestly say I don't understand this mentality.
Majority of our marketing campaigns are digital. Marketing employs a demand generation dude who is mostly a nerd. We use Marketo as well. Marketo is a piece of shit but it does allow you to very cleanly connect leads captured by Google Analytics with just a bit of data wrangling within a consolidated data warehouse. I built the entire corporate warehouse at by FTE position over the past two years. The only piece I hadn't connected was the cost of adwords (primary marketing spend).
I can distinctly show the exact sales pipeline leads captured through GA and thus Marketo as Marketo has some automation that generates captured leads right into Salesforce, where all of our CRM takes place. From what you are saying that team doesn't even do this internally. So they just talk up their campaigns to leadership, say its going to run $5M and just roll with it?