But if Google Sheets can't fit the data they are using, it is by definition "big data", even if it's not Big Data. I think this over-protectiveness of the definition doesn't really serve anyone.
It serves everyone to have relatively stable meanings for words and phrases. "Relatively" because of course there is natural drift over time. But if today I write "big data" and it means "millions of rows in Excel" to Bob but "hundreds or thousands of terrabytes" to Jane, it's effectively useless to use in communication.
Put another way, that Bob thinks he's dealing with "big data" doesn't mean he is in fact.
In four lines you manage to be arrogant, insulting, patronizing, and intellectually sloppy (“by definition”?) I'm disappointed. I'd like to invite you to produce a higher level of discourse.
...you can't be serious. This is an incredibly over the top reaction to a very mild reply. Not to mention that telling me you're disappointed in me and inviting me to "produce a higher level of discourse" is far more arrogant and patronising than anything in my original statement.
But anyway, this is very obviously off-topic. I don't think it serves the wider community to continue this conversation so I'll leave it here.
Well, I'm certainly guilty of the same offense!
There's a company in my building that outfitted their team with $30K+ HP Z series workstations with 256GB of RAM... to run Microsoft Excel 2016.
That's more RAM than my cellphone has, but less disk than my laptop. It's getting close to being “big data.”
Right, if it's only millions of records, why can't Google sheets accommodate it.
Dude, if it fits on your laptop disk, it's not big data. Here you're talking about “big data” that fits in RAM on my cellphone. Somebody needs to get over himself.