Eh, there are numerous options today (vitess, citus, clickhouse, aurora, redshift, bigquery, snowflake). Clickhouse outperforms Scylla by a wide margin at a fraction of the cost and complexity.

Any of the above makes your data accessible via standard SQL. You can hire and utilize proficient data analysts, not people writing esoteric queries in whatever flavor of NoSQL, while actually solving business needs.

Not sure what you're talking about then? It seems you're just talking about the syntax used to query (which I agree SQL is a no-brainer) and not really about the "R" in "RDBMS"

You haven't made a point yourself, so honestly, I don't fucking know what we're talking about either. You came in with a hyperbolic comment that echoes the stance from the NoSQL community I've seen for the past decade. The one that basically says "We have zero fucking clue how to model our data so we're just going to jam everything into bunch of loosely connected JSON documents and spend the next decade adding basic SQL features from the 70s".

I'm not a native speaker but I dare say the point itself about RDBMS was pretty clear. I don't really feel like continuing this argument either.

Clickhouse and other solutions you mentioned are for analytics while Scylla and Cassandra are for real-time. You can't compare the two types of tech

I don't see how Scylla / Cassandra are real-time but ClickHouse is not. You can load event data into ClickHouse just as fast as Cassandra. The data are instantly queryable including pre-computed aggregates in materialized views. You can get answers in milliseconds on data that is only a few second old. Real-time marketing is now an important use case for ClickHouse, just to give one example. If the problem is analyzing and reacting to external events, ClickHouse is tough to beat.

How are Scylla / Cassandra better?

clickhouse, bigquery, snowflake are not even close to RDBMS so what are you going on about? Have you actually used any of those?