#Descriptive vs. Prescriptive

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Hume's Guillotine

The "is-ought problem," also known as Hume's Law or Hume's Guillotine, is a fundamental philosophical issue that addresses the relationship between descriptive statements (what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (what ought to be). The problem was articulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume in his work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1739.

Key Aspects of the Philosophy of the Is-Ought Problem

Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Statements:

Descriptive Statements (Is): These are factual statements about the world. They describe how things are. Examples include "Water boils at 100°C" or "Humans need food to survive."

Prescriptive Statements (Ought): These are normative statements that prescribe how things should be. They reflect values, ethics, or duties. Examples include "People ought to help those in need" or "One should tell the truth."

Hume's Formulation:

David Hume observed that many philosophical arguments attempt to derive prescriptive conclusions from descriptive premises. He argued that there is a fundamental logical gap between statements about what is and statements about what ought to be. According to Hume, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" without introducing some additional normative premise.

Implications for Ethics and Morality:

The is-ought problem has significant implications for moral philosophy. It challenges the notion that objective moral truths can be derived from purely empirical observations. This has led to debates about the foundation of moral principles and the role of reason and emotion in ethical judgments.

Responses to the Is-Ought Problem:

Naturalistic Fallacy: Some philosophers argue that attempts to derive moral principles directly from natural facts commit the "naturalistic fallacy." This term, popularized by G.E. Moore, refers to the mistake of defining moral terms in purely naturalistic terms.

Moral Realism: Moral realists argue that there are objective moral truths that exist independently of human beliefs or feelings. They seek to establish a rational basis for bridging the is-ought gap.

Constructivist Approaches: Constructivists propose that moral principles are constructed through rational deliberation, social agreements, or cultural practices, rather than being derived from natural facts.

Virtue Ethics: Some ethical theories, like virtue ethics, focus on the development of moral character and virtues, arguing that moral principles can be grounded in the nature of human flourishing.

Contemporary Debates:

The is-ought problem continues to be a central topic in meta-ethics and the philosophy of language. Philosophers explore whether and how normative statements can be grounded in empirical reality, the role of human psychology in moral reasoning, and the nature of ethical language and meaning.

Conclusion

The philosophy of the is-ought problem challenges us to carefully examine the foundations of our moral and ethical beliefs. By highlighting the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive statements, it invites ongoing reflection on how we justify our moral principles and the ways in which we connect facts about the world with our values and duties.

[swordoflight]

What does it mean that a biblical passage is descriptive rather than prescriptive?

When studying the Bible, it is important to determine whether the verse or passage at hand is descriptive or prescriptive. The difference is this: a passage is descriptive if it is simply describing something that happened, while a passage is prescriptive if it is specifically teaching that something should happen. Simply put, is it a description or a command? Is the passage describing something (it happened) or is it prescribing something (it should happen)? The difference is important. When a biblical passage is only describing something but is interpreted as prescribing something, it can lead to errant thinking and behavior.

[foone]

I want a human zoology textbook.

Zoology, as in the study of animals. Like, a study of how humans work, done by an author that is not human.

I specifically want this for a couple reasons:

1. Descriptive, not prescriptive: don't tell me what the author thinks humans should do or how they should be. Tell me what they do. Observationally!

2. No bias towards "nature". I don't particularly care what the author is imagining humans are like in some "garden of eden" unfallen state. I want it to reference how humans ARE.

3. No morality applied to this! What do humans DO, not what you think they should do, or how they should be. And most importantly, no self-censorship in order to avoid offending some of the humans that disagree with ways people live.

And the reason I want this is because of how biology textbooks/wiki pages get written, where even if they try to be progressive they're still written from this weird perspective where they're explaining based on old ideas and the progressive stuff gets a footnote.

Like it'll be "humans have two genders, male and female. This is determined from their chromosomes, XY for male and xx for female."

And then you scroll past two pages for men and another two pages for women, and then it has one subsection that covers non-binary people and intersex people. And it's like: well then integrate that into your main statement!

It's like the author's worldview is still "there's two genders and everyone is born as one" but they've been forced to accept there are some weird exceptions but the core worldview is unchanged. And it's understandable! Wrong, but understandable: the grew up in a world that is quite strong on the "there are only two genders" ideology and doesn't like to remember that intersex people exist.

But like, imagine if you tried to do this as a zoologist. You're like "hey, all bees are female!" and then someone points out the rare male drones and they're like "oh okay I'll update my zoology textbook."

And now it reads:

All bees are female. Most are workers, and one is the queen.

(a couple sections go pass)

Drones: recent science has discovered that some bees are born male. These rare exceptions live short lives where they fertilize a queen and then die.

And it's like, no? Drones are very important to how a hive lives and they can't survive without them?

And we're constantly doing the same thing to humans and it's just bad science. Like, sure, maybe you could have the theory that "humans come in two genders: male and female" but as soon as you see one non-binary person, you have to discard that theory: it has been proven false! It's like not believing in other galaxies after Henrietta Swan Leavitt figured out how Cepheid Variables worked.

Add to that the "nature" thing. Like, you can make a sort of argument about nature vs artificial settings for a lot of species: the whole alpha/beta wolf thing came about because it turns out wolves act differently in captivity compared to the wild, so it makes sense to study how the vast majority of wolves live, not a small group you stuffed into a small area with unusual conditions. It's like saying the lifespan of goldfish is under 5 minutes, based on your study of them in this dry box you put them in.

But humans are different: we are tool-users who build new environments for ourselves. And while you can talk about how humans living in different environments act differently, it doesn't make a lot of sense to call one of them "artificial". All of them are made by us, and humans always do this. This means all environments are natural (because building environments for ourselves is what we naturally do) and all environments are artificial: we always alter our environments to better suit us! That's one of the things we naturally do!

And as for morality, it's about not ignoring things humans do regularly because you think it's weird or you think they shouldn't.

Like that tweet where someone pointed out that lots of species can change gender. Clown fish are a big one, some frogs, a couple birds, some lizards, and humans.

And people often have an immediate knee-jerk reaction of "that doesn't count!" for the last entity in that list. Why? Because we do it (usually) with clothes and makeup and medication, instead of just "naturally"? Bullshit. We're naturally TOOL USERS. Of course we use tools to change gender. We use tools to do EVERYTHING. That's natural for us.

So yeah. I think it'd be refreshing and enlightening to have a zoology textbook written about humans with this detached non-human perspective. An unbiased description of what humans are and do, rather than one irrevocably tinged with ideas of what humans should be and should do.

Basically I want to load up Vulcan Wikipedia and check the "Humans" article.

[pocket-deer-boy]

I feel like people generally understand that like, there’s two ways to view a dictionary and to view grammar. There’s the descriptive and the prescriptive way. It’s a dictionary as an authority on how to use words vs. as a thing that records and describes how people use words. And most people understand that dictionaries largely do the second one. But for some reason when it gets to art theory like color theory people’s understanding of this completely breaks down, people feel like color theory isn’t important cause they can just “figure it out” and then don’t have the words to describe what they’re doing. They think you don’t need that shit. That they don’t need to be told how to do colors good. Or alternatively they’ve read up somewhat on color theory and they understand parts of it and understand it as some fundamental framework for how to do colors good and if you do something outside of that you’re doing it wrong and i’ve seen both of these approaches and they make me want to strangle people

[liskantope]

So, reblogs of my OP branched off in this other direction, and people said things I want to respond to!

@loki-zen thank you for bringing up these points. I especially like and am grateful for your (I think mostly implicit from #2? maybe I'm mostly manufacturing this?) point about how from an external perspective, a person choosing to present themself as a particular gender should be treated with a certain level of respect regardless of whether the reason is that they're convinced they Actually Are that gender or that they're not sure what gender they are and are trying it out. It's not something that a person should have to reveal and specify to everyone they encounter in order to be treated a certain way! This is not only because certain types of privacy should be regarded as rights (on a social level) but because the experiment of living as a certain gender and seeing how you like it may be tarnished as an experiment if you're constantly having to let everyone know of its experimental nature.

I completely support people trying things out socially to see what works for them. If I had a kid who was going through some gender questioning, I (after some talks exploring what this gender thing really is, because if it's confusing for me now it's got to be way more confusing for a child!) would encourage them to try socially transitioning for a while. I do have concerns over what happens when most of our discursive environment seems to lump everything into the "choosing to live as a different gender means you're now convinced that's the gender you Really Are" situation, and how that may confuse people who try out different genders like this, or how afraid someone might be to go back after they've invested so much into socially transitioning.

As for how many people in our own circles transition out of a feeling that they're basically just choosing to be another gender, or choosing to try it out, I can think of one mutual on here who did (very briefly and a little vaguely, at one point) describe their transition in such terms; I was a little taken aback at the time but thought, "Well, cool. You're relatively lucky and obviously had resources at your disposal, and I'm glad it's working out for you." It appears moderately uncommon and not to be the type of case that trans activists prefer to put front and center, for the obvious reason that it comes across as much less of a need and implies less suffering. The fact that for some minority of trans people it's (partly) a choice, as with a minority of gay people, is not going to be amplified by the trans movement any more than its analog was for the gay movement. So outsiders are probably not directly going to hear about this and are going to be really confused when they run across "wants to be" phrasing that implies it.

@binary-bluejay your suggestion didn't occur to me since I haven't spent much time in spaces where people are counseling each other through gender-identity-related decisions, but it sounds very plausible.

pre transition people you will run into people tearing themselves into pieces over whether or not they're "really trans" and frankly it is enraging that this kind of thing is being picked up on by conservatives to try and attack trans people.

Well certainly, it is absolutely disgusting when someone sees something like this and exploits other people's pain and insecurity to tear down their rights and their whole support system. It's a severe case of kicking people when they're down. But are most conservatives doing this? Your typical conservative (or Less Online and With It centrist or moderate liberal) is at least 50-something years old, knows how to use email and an internet browser and buys things on Amazon but has no idea what it actually means to Be Online, was up until like two years ago aware of trans issues only on the level of some very few unfortunate people having a deep psychological need for a sex change, and now it's all still kind of an abstraction that is not only confusing in nature to them but whose rhetoric comes across as incoherent most of the time because of the types of contradiction I've been pointing to above, in the name of which they're asking to drastically change the way they use the gendered aspect of the language they've been speaking for over half a century. They're not going to have any idea of what pre-transition people are going through and why it's being framed to them a certain way in online forums (see above: even I don't that much about it!); they're just going to see a youth culture that abruptly seems very obsessed with gender labels and kind of comes across as a bunch of children playing games. In the absence of a clear and consistent message about what's really going on and what being trans really means and why there's this sudden dramatic spike in seeking gender medical treatments ("without it they'll kill themselves" isn't going to cut it), it seems natural that they're going to take a skeptical stance by default (hopefully a skepticism that errs toward open-mindedness, but we all know that's not how humans generally are).

Now if you're someone like Matt Walsh (who makes entire documentaries on the subject) or Jordan Peterson (who's decided that opposing "gender ideology" from an extremely prominent public podium is a hill he wants to die on), then you have absolutely no excuse not to know about aspects of the situation like the phenomenon you were describing. If this is such a passion topic for you that you're making entire documentaries or blaring it from from your microphone to hordes of adoring fans who see you as a god, you absolutely need to research all angles and aspects of what's going on, particularly the points of view of the people who seem most vulnerable. (I'm still convinced Peterson is far less ill-intentioned than the Walsh types and that his issue is being very prone to a certain kind of emotionality and sweeping ideological commitments.) Maybe that's what you meant by "conservatives": the ones with the power to move and shape our discourse. But that's quite a minority of conservatives or otherwise non-progressives.

As for your last paragraph, if I were to think through its implications I might find myself typing for another hour, and I think all I can say for now is that I don't see how we can have any coherent discussion about laws or policies throughout states or nations without being prescriptivist about the kinds of people/circumstances we're talking about. Defending this belief would propel me into another discussion I don't have time to think through right now.

On ACX a few days ago there was a post on the dynamics of the academic job market (highly relevant to me) and of course at least one of the threads in the comments section turns it into culture war stuff. I want to highlight one of the comments because of its relevance to discussion I've been making here lately, and I quote from it below:

The left has a bunch of beliefs that defy biology. For example: 1. There are 50+ genders. 2. Intelligence is entirely a function of nurture, and nature (such as genetics) plays no role. 3. People who are gay are born that way (i.e. it is genetic). Anyone can choose to be trans at any time (sex is not genetic). None of these beliefs would disqualify a person from being a biology professor. They are all substantially more common, and more anti-biology, than any republican-coded example belief you gave.

Now I find most of this comment (with the possible exception of #2) completely off the mark. I don't think I need to preach to the choir by getting into why the "50+ genders" claim is a distortion of the concept of a gender spectrum based on a 7-years-out-of-date weakman. As for "people who are gay are born this way", hardly anyone on the "woke" left seems to insist on it (especially an assumption that environment plays no role), and it reflects a gay rights talking point that's more like 15 years out of date.

But the most interesting part to me, of course, is the "anyone can choose to be trans at any time" characterization of the pro-trans position.

This is good timing for bringing this up, because I was just talking about why Jordan Peterson's rhetoric seems badly twisted and confused, as he seems to be under the impression that those evil "gender theorists" behind the trans movement are all acolytes directly or indirectly of John Money and thus all believe that one's gender can be changed at will or by fiat through external coersion or something. This is as far as I can tell a complete distortion of the actual "trans ideology", but here we can see it reflected by the ACX comment, which shows that this a common "outsiders' view". (And nobody underneath that comment seems to be trying to correct the commenter's impression either.)

But as usual, I'm going to claim that we can't entirely blame misunderstandings like this on the conservative side of this culture war battle. I made an offhand remark a while back in the midst of another post about how astounded I am at seeing "being trans means you want to be a man/woman/neither" descriptive comments multiple times here on Tumblr; I called this "plainly thinly-layered nonsense" and would stand by that now. As soon as you start to pick it apart, it in fact seems to have transphobic (including from the most orthodox view of the trans movement!) implications: what, a trans woman wants to be a woman but isn't one? or does "be a woman" just mean "be viewed as a woman", because I thought that was different from Actually Being a woman? etc.

I'm willing to acknowledge and respect that there must be reasons I don't fully get about why that type of phrasing works well as a description of how many trans people feel -- indeed, someone used it to describe themself in a reblog of my just-above-linked post and if I squint hard enough I can kind of see why they might want to use the phrase -- but if you're going to go around saying being trans is defined as "wanting to be" a certain gender, this (remarks like #3 in the ACX comment above) is the most natural consequence. (Also anecdotes I hear about teachers telling young children, "When you grow up, you can be whatever gender you want!", which is either what some well-meaning teachers nowadays in geographically progressive regions are actually telling kids, or a distortion/exaggeration by conservatives, in either case based on the aforementioned common confusion about pro-trans beliefs.)

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

do you have any insight as to why women's beauty standards put so much weight (pun intended) on having big tits and yet pretty much all women's clothing seems to be made for people with flat chests. i have H/I cups (depending on bra brand) and this question has been driving me fucking crazy lately. i can't find anything to wear and i do not understand how this happens. you seem to Know Things about the textile industry and cultural/historical impacts on fashion norms, does any of it help contextualize what the fuck is going on with this?

"Big tits" means the same thing as "big ass" in this context, aka it's a lie.

I talking about prescriptivism vs descriptivism A LOT (at least I do in real life where I can't escape the convo lol, but I think I have done here as well) and this is another case of that.

The "perfect" figure that has been socially encouraged recently is an hourglass, and specifically the numbers I heard growing up were "30in bust, 26in waist, 30in hips". You may notice how small and flat this is, after all 4 inches of extra flesh is practically nothing. It's about a B or C cup if you throw the numbers into a fitting calculator (I'm assuming that there's at least a 28inch band because 26's aren't real lol). So like how does this get seen as big tits???

Well. Because they ARE. For the frame they're on. And the frame matters more than the tits.

So see, when prescriptivist language says "society wants you to have big tits" that "descriptive language" comes with a "prescriptive caveat" that they only COUNT as big tits if the body they are on remains small and skinny. If the body changes, even if the tits get bigger too, that's it, that's ballgame folka

And like there's wiggle room yeah? And this is when people will start talking about "pretty fat", people who are fat but still carry the ratio of that hourglass figure, only more exaggerated. Technically, I fall in this category right? I mean what else could one call a measurement set of B: 36, W: 30, H: 54? It's certainly a dramatic fuckin silhouette. And lets be real clear, this doesn't cha ge that I am fat as hell and always have been, it doesn't even describe my weight well because these measurements don't change much for me whether I weight 200lbs or 300lbs or more, from past experience. But it does change how people PERCEIVE my fat body.

Now tbc, my measurements aren't hourglass, even an expanded number ratio of it. Look at those hips. So even when I get classed as "pretty fat" there's a perception that I'm "pulling off" something I shouldn't be able to, rather than that I actually fit beauty standards. My tits are actually fucking MASSIVE btw, I have about a 6 inch difference between band and cup, and you may recognize that as some Gandalf-level Badonkers. But I don't get TOLD that I have big tits. Hmmmm. Why is this? Obvi I'm speculating a bit at this point, but given what we know about prescriptivism, I don't think it's an unreasonable theory. Basically, my ass is too big for my tits to count! I'm still hot, and obviously there are people out there all about the ass, so I'm for THEM. My tits are nothing special. This seems to lead to a lot of tits-preferential people being surprised and slightly feral when they REALIZED how big my tits were once we were naked (this happens a lot actually hmmmmmm). While ass-preferential folks are never surprised by the desireability of my hips to them. Clearly the relationship of tit to body is influential in their perceived level of desireability then, yeah?

The other side of this is that clothes are made square and "flat" like they are because it's easier to mass manufacture and sell than if you made "curvy" cuts. There actually used to be a regular practice with manufacturers while they were phasing out more curved patterns to label straight cuts as "skinny" or "petite" in order to distinguish them from the better fitting but more costly curved cuts. Basically, they can cut more panels for more patterns out of less fabric if they don't leave room for asses and tits, and instead just oversize them all slightly and slap on some elastic in key places. This is, more and more, how clothes are made. And it has nothing to do with what is desirable to (perception or real) people on women's bodies. It is purely about profit and the ways companies exploit resources. They have no incentive to do different after all, clothing is a captive audience, and for all that the news likes to blame consumers for textile and fashion industry waste, the vast majority of that resource abuse occurs before the garments ever reach a sales floor in ways we literally cannot protest or boycott because they're industry standard. So clothes that would CREATE an hourglass aesthetic disappear from the shelves and you are instead asked to simply BE AN HOURGLASS but like. That's a recipe for body dysphoria lol (again, not REALLY theorizing here, we know this to be part of the process of growing eating disorders and body dysmorphia/dysphoria rates, even if we don't know exactly how and how much). And the clothing companies don't mind that outcome (I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose, just that it's an outcome they don't seem to mind ignoring and letting continue) because the current socio-political zeitgeist posits buying clothes as the solution to that problem anyway, and they only benefit from that feedback loop.

I mean realistically there's a million tiny conversations wrapped up in your question, but these are the ones I feel most equipped to initiate. Maybe others can expand on what other areas in their ken may interact with these factors!

[1000dactyls]

Do you have any hiccup songs? A playlist perhaps?

why yes, yes i do! Please ignore that i am answering this question only two months late (I AM SO SORRY). I do not have a Hiccup playlist quite yet 😭 if only because i have been listening to nigh-exclusively the HTTYD 1 and 2 score while studying. But here are a couple of songs that immediately make me think “yeah, this is hiccup”.

the Hozier ones, first:

1. From Eden by Hozier

wow. soooo groundbreaking /j but i am kind of serious about this pick. “Babe / There's something tragic about you / Something so magic about you” ? in the words of my family: hiccup has the kind of beauty that predicts and invites tragedy. the intensity in his eyes in httyd2 is something else. “Idealism sits in prison, chivalry fell on its sword” indeed

2. Francesca by Hozier

holy shit a Dante’s Inferno inspired album?? Babes i am SEATEDDDD and so is hiccup. “Francesca” is a song about choosing to love someone else regardless of the consequences, even if that means being eternally damned together. Which, yeah. That’s Hiccup and Toothless.

yes ok i could probably write my thesis on how many hozier songs fit hiccup but that takes all the fun out of this ask. let’s move on

3. Minor Feelings by Rina Sawayama

WHERE DO I EVEN START ARGHHH. I’m going to leave you with this chunk of lyrics and you can fill in the blanks:

“All my life, I've felt out of place All my life, I've been saving face For all these minor feelings are majorly breaking me down”

4. King of Sorrow by Sade

hiccup is always 10 seconds and a light jog away from a xanax prescription ASAP. Ok I jest—but seriously, i love a good r&b moment, and i like that this song is very much away from the kind of “sound” i typically associate with hiccup

5. Everybody Wants to Rule the World by Tears for Fears

this would not be a list of songs made by me without this song. Am i biased? YES. Is this song basically Hiccup vs every antagonist after HTTYD1? YES. Is this the greatest song ever produced? Idk, but it’s definitely top 10.

6. And the Hound by Yaelokre

I really like the opening descriptions here—they remind me of hiccup (“Where does a mind like yours wonder / When it's sung to sleep?”), which is why I’m including this song. It’s really good and there’s a more coherent reason other than “I really like it” but the vibes do play a large role

7. Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want (Deftones Cover)

SPECIFICALLY the Deftones cover over the original song by The Smiths, because the Deftones one sounds more desperate/angry to my ears, which feels more suited to the younger hiccup. 100% i believe this would be in hiccup’s breakdown playlist.

[umarblog1]

Short-Term vs. Long-Term Data Analytics Course in Delhi: Which One to Choose?

In today’s digital world, data is everywhere. From small businesses to large organizations, everyone uses data to make better decisions. Data analytics helps in understanding and using this data effectively. If you are interested in learning data analytics, you might wonder whether to choose a short-term or a long-term course. Both options have their benefits, and your choice depends on your goals, time, and career plans.

At Uncodemy, we offer both short-term and long-term data analytics courses in Delhi. This article will help you understand the key differences between these courses and guide you to make the right choice.

What is Data Analytics?

Data analytics is the process of examining large sets of data to find patterns, insights, and trends. It involves collecting, cleaning, analyzing, and interpreting data. Companies use data analytics to improve their services, understand customer behavior, and increase efficiency.

There are four main types of data analytics:

Descriptive Analytics: Understanding what has happened in the past.

Diagnostic Analytics: Identifying why something happened.

Predictive Analytics: Forecasting future outcomes.

Prescriptive Analytics: Suggesting actions to achieve desired outcomes.

Short-Term Data Analytics Course

A short-term data analytics course is a fast-paced program designed to teach you essential skills quickly. These courses usually last from a few weeks to a few months.

Benefits of a Short-Term Data Analytics Course

Quick Learning: You can learn the basics of data analytics in a short time.

Cost-Effective: Short-term courses are usually more affordable.

Skill Upgrade: Ideal for professionals looking to add new skills without a long commitment.

Job-Ready: Get practical knowledge and start working in less time.

Who Should Choose a Short-Term Course?

Working Professionals: If you want to upskill without leaving your job.

Students: If you want to add data analytics to your resume quickly.

Career Switchers: If you want to explore data analytics before committing to a long-term course.

What You Will Learn in a Short-Term Course

Introduction to Data Analytics

Basic Tools (Excel, SQL, Python)

Data Visualization (Tableau, Power BI)

Basic Statistics and Data Interpretation

Hands-on Projects

Long-Term Data Analytics Course

A long-term data analytics course is a comprehensive program that provides in-depth knowledge. These courses usually last from six months to two years.

Benefits of a Long-Term Data Analytics Course

Deep Knowledge: Covers advanced topics and techniques in detail.

Better Job Opportunities: Preferred by employers for specialized roles.

Practical Experience: Includes internships and real-world projects.

Certifications: You may earn industry-recognized certifications.

Who Should Choose a Long-Term Course?

Beginners: If you want to start a career in data analytics from scratch.

Career Changers: If you want to switch to a data analytics career.

Serious Learners: If you want advanced knowledge and long-term career growth.

What You Will Learn in a Long-Term Course

Advanced Data Analytics Techniques

Machine Learning and AI

Big Data Tools (Hadoop, Spark)

Data Ethics and Governance

Capstone Projects and Internships

Key Differences Between Short-Term and Long-Term Courses

FeatureShort-Term CourseLong-Term CourseDurationWeeks to a few monthsSix months to two yearsDepth of KnowledgeBasic and Intermediate ConceptsAdvanced and Specialized ConceptsCostMore AffordableHigher InvestmentLearning StyleFast-PacedDetailed and ComprehensiveCareer ImpactQuick Entry-Level JobsBetter Career Growth and High-Level JobsCertificationBasic CertificateIndustry-Recognized CertificationsPractical ProjectsLimitedExtensive and Real-World Projects

How to Choose the Right Course for You

When deciding between a short-term and long-term data analytics course at Uncodemy, consider these factors:

Your Career Goals

If you want a quick job or basic knowledge, choose a short-term course.

If you want a long-term career in data analytics, choose a long-term course.

Time Commitment

Choose a short-term course if you have limited time.

Choose a long-term course if you can dedicate several months to learning.

Budget

Short-term courses are usually more affordable.

Long-term courses require a bigger investment but offer better returns.

Current Knowledge

If you already know some basics, a short-term course will enhance your skills.

If you are a beginner, a long-term course will provide a solid foundation.

Job Market

Short-term courses can help you get entry-level jobs quickly.

Long-term courses open doors to advanced and specialized roles.

Why Choose Uncodemy for Data Analytics Courses in Delhi?

At Uncodemy, we provide top-quality training in data analytics. Our courses are designed by industry experts to meet the latest market demands. Here’s why you should choose us:

Experienced Trainers: Learn from professionals with real-world experience.

Practical Learning: Hands-on projects and case studies.

Flexible Schedule: Choose classes that fit your timing.

Placement Assistance: We help you find the right job after course completion.

Certification: Receive a recognized certificate to boost your career.

Final Thoughts

Choosing between a short-term and long-term data analytics course depends on your goals, time, and budget. If you want quick skills and job readiness, a short-term course is ideal. If you seek in-depth knowledge and long-term career growth, a long-term course is the better choice.

At Uncodemy, we offer both options to meet your needs. Start your journey in data analytics today and open the door to exciting career opportunities. Visit our website or contact us to learn more about our Data Analytics course in delhi.

Your future in data analytics starts here with Uncodemy!

[xaltius]

Business Analytics vs. Data Science: Understanding the Key Differences

In today's data-driven world, terms like "business analytics" and "data science" are often used interchangeably. However, while they share a common goal of extracting insights from data, they are distinct fields with different focuses and methodologies. Let's break down the key differences to help you understand which path might be right for you.

Business Analytics: Focusing on the Present and Past

Business analytics primarily focuses on analyzing historical data to understand past performance and inform current business decisions. It aims to answer questions like:

What happened?

Why did it happen?

What is happening now?

Key characteristics of business analytics:

Descriptive and Diagnostic: It uses techniques like reporting, dashboards, and data visualization to summarize and explain past trends.

Structured Data: It often works with structured data from databases and spreadsheets.

Business Domain Expertise: A strong understanding of the specific business domain is crucial.

Tools: Business analysts typically use tools like Excel, SQL, Tableau, and Power BI.

Focus: Optimizing current business operations and improving efficiency.

Data Science: Predicting the Future and Building Models

Data science, on the other hand, focuses on building predictive models and developing algorithms to forecast future outcomes. It aims to answer questions like:

What will happen?

How can we make it happen?

Key characteristics of data science:

Predictive and Prescriptive: It uses machine learning, statistical modeling, and AI to predict future trends and prescribe optimal actions.

Unstructured and Structured Data: It can handle both structured and unstructured data from various sources.

Technical Proficiency: Strong programming skills (Python, R) and a deep understanding of machine learning algorithms are essential.

Tools: Data scientists use programming languages, machine learning libraries, and big data technologies.

Focus: Developing innovative solutions, building AI-powered products, and driving long-term strategic initiatives.

Key Differences Summarized:

Which Path is Right for You?

Choose Business Analytics if:

You are interested in analyzing past data to improve current business operations.

You have a strong understanding of a specific business domain.

You prefer working with structured data and using visualization tools.

Choose Data Science if:

You are passionate about building predictive models and developing AI-powered solutions.

You have a strong interest in programming and machine learning.

You enjoy working with both structured and unstructured data.

Xaltius Academy's Data Science & AI Course:

If you're leaning towards data science and want to delve into machine learning and AI, Xaltius Academy's Data Science & AI course is an excellent choice. This program equips you with the necessary skills and knowledge to become a proficient data scientist, covering essential topics like:

Python programming

Machine learning algorithms

Data visualization

And much more!

By understanding the distinct roles of business analytics and data science, you can make an informed decision about your career path and leverage the power of data to drive success.

[dragontatoes]

I've been trying to think of a way to describe something linguistically for a long time, help me out if you can. It's a little bit like descriptive vs prescriptive, I think, but I can tell it's not the same thing.

Some categories differ in size depending on whether you base categorization on subjects or from the category itself.

If asked to list your friends, you may have a specific group in mind that only counts to 3-15 people. But when asked about your relationship to someone outside of that group, and they are too close to consider an "acquaintance" you might still call them a friend.

Another example, the debate on whether or not a hot dog is a sandwich. It fulfills most definitions, as a split bread roll with a meat filling and toppings between, but it's not spoken of colloquially as a sandwich. One should not place it under "sandwich" in a restaurant menu, or list it as an option when someone asks for a sandwich. However, if you had to describe it to someone who had never heard of a hot dog, you may describe it as a kind of sandwich.

Does this have a name? If not, can I just call it "category-first" and "subject-first"? Ex: She is a friend, but only a subject-first friend. I only have 3 category-first friends.

[thesorcerersapprentice]

✦ C U C U F A T E ✦ CHARACTER PROFILE

Cucufate is Altaluna's (the protagonist) main ally in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Under the cut, you’ll find his complete profile! *I'll update this page as I come up with new details.

TAG LIST: (ask to be + or - ) @the-finch-address @achilleanmafia @fearofahumanplanet @winterninja-fr@avrablake​ @iced-ginger-tea​ @wildswrites​​ @tate-lin​ @outpost51 @d3mon-ology @hippiewrites @threeking @lexiklecksi

I D - CARD 

✦  Full Name: Cucufate or Cucuphas (I borrowed the name from the patron saint of petty thieves and kyphosis). Pronounced: "cook - ooo (as in "goo") - fa (as in "fa-la-la-la-la") - te (as in "telephone"). ✦  Age: Unknown ✦  Sex & Gender: Irrelevant, but I'm thinking male? ✦  Physical Description: Cucufate is a culpeo, a South American canid otherwise known as a Paramo Wolf or Andean Fox (although it bears a striking resemblance to the red fox, it's actually more closely related to wolves and coyotes). ✦ Occupation: One of Valeriano's Abandoned Projects.

INSPIRATION

✦ Socrates & Bartleby: (*I'm in the process of rewriting this section, as it isn't very clear. Thanks for your patience!) Cucufate is based on two figures: the ancient philosopher Socrates and Bartleby from the short story Bartleby, The Scrivener by Herman Melville. What I wanted to do with Cucufate was find a way to have an animal speak without necessarily resorting to a 'human' voice (a voice that furthers our aims, mimics and thus elevates our culture, clarifies and informs etc.). This is where Socrates and Bartleby enter the picture. They both provide a language model that subverts standard communication. For instance, despite being the primary character in Plato's Dialogues and one of the most famous philosophers of all time, Socrates makes no positive or prescriptive claims (thou shalt not blah, this is that etc.). Instead, he talks in (flattery &) questions, undermining any certainty his interlocutors might feel by prodding and probing their knowledge of x, y & z until they are forced to reveal their ignorance (this is known as Socratic irony). Socrates' speech is thus a kind of anti-speech. If it spotlights a topic, it does so only to reveal the immensity of the darkness that sustains it, its lack of substance. Indeed, whenever Socrates opens his mouth, he widens the abyss that will eventually swallow his interlocutor's thoughts and beliefs whole, and terminate the discussion (silence). Hence, Socratic dialogue successfully humiliates and confuses us. It strips us of that very human arrogance, our intellectual bravado, so that we too can become wise: so that we too can share in the wisdom of knowing that we don't know. Doesn't the natural world do the same? Isn't that precisely the horror of climate change? Bartleby, on the other hand, taps into the ambiguity of certain language formulas. His signature phrase "I would prefer not to," which he repeats whenever he's asked to do his job, expresses a hypothetical that... never seems to go anywhere? It's the Schrodinger's Cat of phrases, simultaneously dead and alive; he'd prefer not to, but... will he or won't he? Yes. The ambiguity, the inaction of it, dumfounds and incapacitates his employer. Bartleby's speech thus provides an example of a language that resists, confounds rather than clarifies, and complicates rather than simplifies. Like Socratic irony, Bartleby's masterful use of the conditional and modal auxiliary verb "would," disrupts the status quo. Because Cucufate's speech pattern draws from both of them, he becomes an effective helper to Altaluna; by engaging with her, he counteracts the temptation to think along the lines of a simplistic, "heroic" fascism (good vs. evil, light vs. darkness, us vs. them), and forces her instead to adopt a more nuanced stance, capable of aptly handing contradiction and ambiguity. (*Appropriated from this post).

✦ Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society by Marcel Detienne & Jean-Pierre Vernant: "When Oppian describes the cunning of the fishing frog squatting in the mud, motionless and invisible, he compares it to the fox: ‘The scheming fox (agkulómetis kerdō) devises a similar trick; as soon as it spots a flock of wild birds it lies down on its side, stretches out its agile limbs, closes its eyelids and shuts its mouth. To see it you would think that it was enjoying a deep sleep or even that it was really dead, so well does it hold its breath as it lies stretched out there, all the while turning over treacherous plots (aióla bouleúousa) in its mind. No sooner do the birds notice it than they swoop down on it in a flock and, as if in mockery, tear at its coat with their claws, but as soon as they are within reach of its teeth the fox reveals its cunning (dólos) and seizes them unexpectedly. The fox is a trap; when the right moment comes the dead creature becomes more alive than the living. [….] If the metis of the fox is immediately detectable in its skill at playing dead, it is dazzlingly apparent in this sudden reversal. In effect, the fox holds the secret of reversal which is the last word in craftiness." (pp. 35-36)

© 2023 The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. All rights reserved.

[fandomsoda]

Anon, I do not owe you a response. It’s common sense that if you’re in someone’s DNI, you block and move on. You will not convince me to become a more hateful person. It’s just not happening. Framing this whole mess as “us vs them” is so disgusting I can’t even fathom. This type of discourse only harms and distracts the queer community. The lesbian label is going to evolve and change, just like every other queer label is. And if you can’t accept that, that’s a you problem.

You have not sent me “proof that mspec lesbians are harmful”, you sent me carrd and status links. That’s not proof. Nebulous claims of problematicism and “notions the label pushes” which are all just imagined “implications” you decided these labels have are not proof. Mspec lesbians do not push that “lesbians can be fixed”, or anything like that, they simply exist as a different kind of lesbian. That is such a leap in logic. I’m sure there’s been at least one asshole to say that while using mspec lesbians as reference, but that is not some sort of tenant of these labels, I highly doubt most if any actual mspec lesbians would agree with that statement.

Something else frustrating is that one of your “sources” claimed that “there’s not a million different ways to be a lesbian” when- YES there is??!? There’s a million different ways to be any queer identity. Who are you or anyone for that matter to dictate how people can be a lesbian? HELLO???

Holy Christ man, queer labels are descriptive. Not prescriptive. They are tools we combine to describe our experiences, not boxes we are put into and gatekeep. If someone uses both an mspec label and a mono label to convey how they experience their sexuality, that should not be a fucking issue. They are using words to convey their experiences in a way that feels right, that does not affect you and that is none of your business.

And the fact that you use language like that I “claim to” be a lesbian- I’m gonna be generous and assume that this wasn’t what you meant to convey, as I have made a similar error in the past, but given the context it really comes off like you’re questioning the validity of my identity which is gross as hell if that is what you’re doing. You phrase this mess as if mspec lesbians are somehow actively attacking lesbians and trying to destroy the label and that I’m somehow a traitor for realizing that’s not true. And that’s just. So fucking stupid. And gross.

This is the queer community, we should be accepting and uplifting each other even if we don’t fully understand each other’s labels. And the fact that you’re so pissed that someone would DARE to combine labels to express themselves, that you now view these random ass people minding their own business as part of a culture war of some kind? Do you not see how ridiculous that is? You are the only one fighting this war man, mspec lesbians are not out to get you.

Listen, I understand that a label or space that you’ve held for a long time changing can be scary. That’s a natural thing to feel and I’m not gonna tell you that you can’t feel that way, your feelings are valid. But that doesn’t mean you get to spread hate, that doesn’t mean you get to be an ass. This whole mess is just so wildly out of touch that I am earnestly asking you to go outside. Please go outside. This is not a sarcastic “touch grass”, I genuinely think you need sunshine.

And just to close this off, because I know that you’ll say “you’re just listening to your echo chamber!” or “you’re not even thinking about what I say!”. Maybe I’m not in an echo chamber, maybe I just have earnest beliefs that I am convicted in. I actually don’t engage with or get exposed to this discourse very often, it’s just that normal fucking people don’t get in a tizzy about someone else’s harmless identity like this.

I’m not brainwashed, I’m not in an echo chamber, I’m not ignoring you just because I “can’t argue” with anything you have to say, it’s because I’ve heard all of this a million times before and I genuinely just disagree and think that you are wrong. I am not some robot that cannot think for themselves, I am a whole ass human person who holds my own beliefs, morals, and values. And the fact you’re willing to say such things about me for simply refusing to become more hateful for you is both astounding and disgusting.

That’s all for now, I apologize to everyone who had to have this on their dashboard, I just had to say this shit for the record.

[aditisposts]

Predictive vs Prescriptive vs Descriptive Analytics Explained 

Business analytics leveraging data patterns for strategic moves comes in three key approaches – descriptive identifying “what has occurred", predictive forecasting “what could occur” and prescriptive recommending “what should occur” to optimize decisions. We decode the science behind each for aspiring analytics professionals.

Descriptive analytics convert volumes of historical data into insightful summaries around metrics revealing business health, customer trends, operational efficiencies etc. using direct analysis, aggregation and mining techniques producing current reports. 

Predictive analytics forecast unknown future probabilities applying statistical, econometric and machine learning models over existing data to minimize uncertainties and capture emerging behaviors early for mitigation actions. Risk models simulate scenarios balancing upside/downside tradeoffs. 

Prescriptive analytics take guidance one step further by dynamically recommending best decision options factoring in key performance indicators for business objective improvements after predicting multiple futures using bell curve simulations. Optimization algorithms deliver preferred actions.

While foundational data comprehension and wrangling abilities fuel all models – pursuing analytics specializations focused on statistical, computational or operational excellence boosts career-readiness filling different priorities global employers seek!

Posted By:

Aditi Borade, 4th year Barch,

Ls Raheja School of architecture 

Disclaimer: The perspectives shared in this blog are not intended to be prescriptive. They should act merely as viewpoints to aid overseas aspirants with helpful guidance. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before availing the services of a consultant.

[riparian-ripuarian]

Next yall will say straight people invented queer people. Meanwhile, there always have been and always will be neurodivergent gay people. Defining a group by its relation to the hegemon is so unoriginal. It mistakes the relationship itself as a causal originator of the group instead of a correlating factor in the present conditions of the group. The name or the label affects how people think and talk about the demographic that is labeled, but it does not will that demographic into or out of existence. Whether or not they live in a society that accommodates them will influence how much, if at all, they stand out. I agree that the status quo has and had a role in deciding who/what is "typical" vs "divergent", and that psychological taxonomies can be faulty. But this whole confusion of description/prescription is tiring.

the neurotypical invents the neurodivergent. neuro(non)normativity is a constant negotiation of social conditions + relation to capital + carceral frameworks of legal, educational, medical systems. “neurotype” is not an ontological status. it is a mirror held to the world in which it exists.

[kyrajolie]

Research Dump: Gender and Sexuality

...sigh.

Disclaimer: I am a cis (mostly) straight (white) woman. So, please understand that I am well aware that I am speaking about communities to which I do not belong. That said, I have grown up with gay relatives, have had several bi-sexual friends, and my child is gender non-conforming/non-binary(ish). She also has several trans friends.

I speak on this subject with great respect and a bit of exasperation. I feel that many people are willfully ignorant about these topics. Others are not willful, but still ignorant. I have also found it very common to fetishize members of members of these communities, which is very frustrating. My goal in conveying the below information is to educate.

All of that said, if I am ignorant, please feel free to correct me. The goal is to spread correct information, not ignorance.

Sex vs. Gender vs. Sexuality

Sex

Sex is broadly defined by the primary biological sexual characteristics that are exhibited on the human body. There are three broad sexes: male, female, and intersex. Male exhibit the exterior sexual organs of a penis and testicles. Female exhibit the interior sexual organs of a vagina, uterus, and ovaries. Intersex exhibit any combination of the above.

Intersex individuals may have both sets of sexual organs or "underdeveloped" individual organs. For example, a "male" intersex may be functionally male but unable to produce sperm while a "female" intersex may be functionally female but unable to menstruate.

There have even been examples of children exhibiting one set of sex characteristics in their prepubescent life and a different set after puberty. (Biology is weird.)

Gender

Gender is a social concept that is typically related to sex, but does not directly correlate. Different societies and cultures will assign different roles or characteristics to different genders. These roles are often prescriptive rather than descriptive (meaning they state how people should behave not how they actually do behave).

Theoretically, gender roles are assigned based on the biological abilities of each sex. However, this is rarely the case. For example, there was a belief that women were physically incapable of logical thought thus they were considered unable to be leaders or take on any role dependent on intelligence. This is clearly not true, as is evidenced by many other cultures and societies that are have been led exclusively by women.

Sexuality

Sexuality refers to the sex or gender than an individual finds sexually attractive. While there is obvious emotional elements to this, sexuality mainly refers to the physical elements.

For example, there are individuals who can be romantically attracted to both genders, but are only sexually attracted to one. The opposite can be true as well.

Sex and Gender Terms (beyond male/female)

Transgender, Transsexual, and cis-

While these two terms are often used interchangeably, they do have specifically different meanings.

Transgender is someone who has transitioned from one gender to the next.

Transsexual is someone who has medically transitioned from one sex to another. (They have had medical operations to make corrections to their physical form.)

It is important to note for both of these than people who have transitioned are not changing their personal identity. They are, instead, transitioning how they present their personal identity. Individuals who are trans were mentally and emotionally always part of their specified gender, but did not socially or physically present that way. (A transwoman was always a woman, she just previously presented as male to the world.)

Cis- is a prefix to gender or sex terms that indicates that the individual identifies with the gender and sex they were assigned at birth. This was developed to stop the rather insulting idea of these individuals being "normal" or standard in some way.

Non-Binary and Gender Non-Conforming

Non-Binary individuals do not agree with the ideology that gender is confined to two either/or genders. They identify with a gender outside of those two.

Gender Non-Conforming individuals are those that feel that they do not conform to the societal definition of gender norms. They reject the idea of changing themselves to conform to either.

Anthropologists and psychiatrists have discussed that these two descriptions may fade over time if we see an erasure in gender norms. As in, if we do not have rigid gender roles, there would be no need to feel like you have to conform or adhere to one of them.

Additionally, some argue that the concept of non-binary is a misunderstanding of gender and sexuality. As is seen with intersex individuals, the more correct understanding might be to see gender and sexuality as a sliding scale with male and female on opposite poles where individuals can fall anywhere on the spectrum.

Regardless of these arguments, however, at present the individuals who identify as non-binary or gender non-conforming all have valid desires to be understood on their own terms.

Agender and Genderfluid

Agender individuals do not identify with any gender. They do not feel any identity with any of the genders at all. They are separate from gender non-conforming as GNC individuals still identify with gender, just not with the specified ones.

Genderfluid individuals change which gender they identify with periodically. These changes may be due to situations or may just change depending on the day/week/month of their life. Some genderfluid people may change their identifying gender very regularly, while others may change very rarely.

Sexuality Terms

Heterosexual

This is the romantic and sexual attraction to members of the opposite gender.

Homosexual

This is the romantic and sexual attraction to members of the same gender.

Bisexual

This is the romantic and sexual attraction to both genders. This could be equal amounts for both or skewed towards one gender.

Bisexual individuals are actually frequently discriminated against by all other parties. Homosexual individuals feel that they are not fully part of the Pride community as they can "pass" for straight if they choose. Heterosexual individuals are more likely to suspect bisexual partners of cheating since they have "twice the opportunity". Additionally, bisexual women are often fetishized by heterosexual male partners who want a woman who will participate in a threesome.

Pansexual

This is the romantic and sexual attraction to the individual rather than a gender. For example, if a pansexual individual is in a relationship with someone who transitions, they would be attracted to both their pre and post transition selves. They care about the person, not their gender.

Asexual

This the general absence of sexual attraction to either gender. These individuals may still enjoy sexual encounters with those they have romantic feelings for, but do not typically seek out sex or may have sex only out of obligation to their chosen partner.

Asexuality can also be used to describe individuals with an extremely low libido. As in, if the average person would prefer to have sex a few times a week, these individuals would seek to have sex a few times a year.

Demisexual

This is a term that describes individuals that only experience sexual attraction within a relationship or with people that they have developed a strong emotional attachment to. They do not show sexual attraction based on physical characteristics, but on personality. Once they have developed an attraction for someone, they may develop physical attraction to their partner. Outside of these emotional attractions, they may be seen as asexual.

Aromantic

While not strictly a sexuality term, these individuals do not feel romantic love for others but may still feel sexual attraction to one or both genders. They are capable of familial and platonic love, but do not have romantic attachments.

Questioning

This is a term for those who are unsure about their sexuality and are in the process of questioning or exploring it. While these individuals are typically younger and are in the process of figuring themselves out, an individual may become questioning at a later point in their life if they never chose to explore and understand their own sexuality before.

Gay, Lesbian, Queer

For some reason, Gay went from being a generally descriptive term for homosexuality to indicating only male homosexuals.

Lesbians are female homosexuals with the name coming from an ancient Greek island settlement for homosexual and bisexual women.

Queer is a reclaimed term for the community at large. Many have started using this term for anyone within the greater Pride community, but others object to outsiders using it. The term has not been fully reclaimed.

I hope that this was informative. Obviously, there are things that I left out and I did simplify. I would say the important thing is to remember that any person or character that claims any of the above should always be seen/written as a person first. If you create a character around a sexuality or gender, then you are perpetuating the idea that these individuals are only their gender or sexual identities and not people.

If you can't figure out how to do that, then write the character as if they have no sexual or gender traits and then add details about their gender and sexuality in afterwards.

Because respect is important. And stereotyping is just sending things in the wrong direction.

[vvia-p]

Week 11: Iteration Based on MVP Feedback

Customer Insights from Continued MVP Testing

In Week 11, we conducted another round of MVP testing to gather more feedback from users—including students, teachers, and professionals—after letting them try out the CareXpress platform. This week, the focus was on improving usability, prescription tracking, map and location accuracy, and feature expectations.

Click here to view Week 11 Documentation.

Key Takeaways from User Interviews

Ease of Use

Most users found the app easy to navigate due to its straightforward layout.

Some users from older generations still found it hard to navigate and suggested tutorials for first-time users.

Prescription Handling and Security

Users appreciated that digital prescriptions couldn’t be screenshotted or altered, increasing trust.

There was a suggestion to retain expired prescriptions in a read-only format for future medical consultations.

Pharmacy Listings and Medicine Descriptions

Many noted that pharmacy listings were limited and lacked complete inventory data.

Users emphasized the need for medicine descriptions, including dosage, purpose, and use-case scenarios.

Map Accuracy and Tracking Issues

Multiple users reported that the map did not show real-time locations and sometimes displayed incorrect user positions.

Users wanted rider tracking and communication features, not just static distance displays.

Login and Profile System

Users found the login page frustrating. They suggested enabling phone number login, like Grab or Foodpanda.

There was also a request for role-specific options (customer-only vs. patient-user).

General Bug Reports and UI Issues

Browse button was unresponsive for some users.

Font contrast issues made some text hard to read.

Users suggested adding pharmacy branch names to help with selection.

Decisions Made This Week

To address these concerns, the following updates will be prioritized:

Improving the Map System – Fixing the real-time tracking issues and correcting location inaccuracies.

Prescription History Access – Making expired prescriptions viewable in a read-only mode for medical referencing.

Adding Medicine Descriptions – Providing users with detailed information per product.

Enhancing Login Options – Implementing phone number authentication and allowing role selection.

Rider Tracking and Communication – Enabling live tracking of riders and a messaging system between rider and customer.

UI/UX Enhancements – Fixing browse button, improving text readability, and showing branch names.

Lessons Learned

Week 11 reaffirmed that clarity, security, and accessibility are the pillars of trust in health-tech apps. Users appreciate simplicity, but also want robust features that meet everyday needs—like detailed medication info, accurate tracking, and easy access. Addressing technical gaps and supporting both tech-savvy and non-tech users will be essential as we prepare the next version of CareXpress.

Hanggang sa Muli,

•°. *࿐