The argument seemed pretty clear to me; more accessible tooling means more users and contributors. But as an apparent SME I could see how you'd feel clickbaited by the title.
Mainly a point of clarification - I don't think DuckDB represents anything new in geospatial. It represents a new paradigm for data management and data architecture. Understanding the difference isn't optional.
DuckDB handles floating point numbers too - is DuckDB the most important thing in floating point data? Of course not, the data types and operators haven't changed. The underlying compute environment has. That's where the innovation is. I'd simply appreciate if technical writers took two seconds to make this vital distinction - being precise isn't hard and I don't know what we gain by publishing intentionally muddled technical articles.
Mainly a point of clarification - I don't think DuckDB represents anything new in geospatial. It represents a new paradigm for data management and data architecture. Understanding the difference isn't optional.
DuckDB handles floating point numbers too - is DuckDB the most important thing in floating point data? Of course not, the data types and operators haven't changed. The underlying compute environment has. That's where the innovation is. I'd simply appreciate if technical writers took two seconds to make this vital distinction - being precise isn't hard and I don't know what we gain by publishing intentionally muddled technical articles.