ludston

I'm sure that hunger has been a bigger problem in Africa and India than it has been in any socialist state in our lifetimes.

Good ole mass-starvation for the majority that can't find work that appeases the ownership class? It's a unique value-system I suppose.

Nah it never catches on because of a combination of momentum, esoterica, being more difficult to learn due to having more discrete functions in the stl. And then there is the fact that it's pretty dated, so lots of people come to CL, get mad about it's warts and then become compiler writers.

I say this as somebody that loves CL dearly. The difference between princ, prin1 and print; set, setf and setq; =, eq, eql, equal and equalp is more than most programmers can be bothered to memorize.

At that point, the machines correctness doesn't need to be evaluated by humans, it just needs to provide a recipe for how to achieve some process.

It's a bit more circular than that. The music you were raised with sounds good to you, which means you want to understand how to make music like that hence the dominance of 12 tones and major and minor scales in Western music.

But also, nobody bothers to talk about this because for beginners without sufficient focus on mastery by copying other people, they're generally not going to be able to do anything notable with music anyway, so this kind of meta-theory is an unnecessary distraction. (And by the time you are actually decent with music literally years have passed and you've probably stumbled upon this idea by then)

> we tolerate them being slightly out of tune

And in many cases we don't need to tolerate this because most instruments barring guitar and piano allow musicians to tune chords to just temperament, and players will do this automatically and completely subconsciously.

Probably just turn off the jammer for 2 seconds

Given that the purpose of a measure is to make predictions: IQ can be used to improve predictions of academic outcomes, whereas the multiple intelligences models are worse at this.

Whether or not there are multiple intelligences or not is an implementation detail unless knowledge of this has measurably lead to some better prediction.

It's telling how out of touch the evaluators of these things are that the grand winner designed a tool that's been in use by fire services for decades. (Software that predicts fires based on lightening strikes). But you slap LLM on it, and assert that somehow you can replace the arborists and helicopter pilots with drones (as if the human piloting the thing is the expensive part of a multi million dollar vehicle hauling tonnes of water around anyway) and that tricks non-professionals into thinking you're disrupting a field.

Congratulations, I'm sure it was a monumental effort to build this. Good luck with marketing and all that.

> Not as a stand in for general stupidity.

It's being used as a stand in for a very specific example of stupidity, and it is "clever" because it evokes strong imagery in an unexpected way. Which is why it is funny. But still offensive. It's best to avoid black and white thinking about things like this, as hard as it is for the ego to admit that it takes pleasure from cruelty.

I assume you're being sarcastic, but moron, retard, stupid, dumb, idiot, mad, imbecile, mongoloid, spastic, lame, lunatic, maniac and psycho were all used as medical terms before they became stigmatic. Filter out sexual and scatological insults and there is very little left.

Most of our insults against intelligence come from medical terminology originally. Every word eventually starts being used offensively, and then a new one gets coined and the cycle continues.

It is, and autism is just the swap-in vulnerable minority of the day that is socially acceptable to be the butt of the joke.

If you don't understand what I mean, swap out "autistic" for "retarded" and the joke still functions, but a lot more people will be offended by it.

I still laughed though.

Governments have been working on this for more then 20 years now. 40 maybe. As long as I've been alive at least. It's just that all of the actions to try and deal with this have been continuously undermined by fossil fuel industries and right-wing politics.

The fact that Arch is bleeding edge has been an explicit part of the Arch philosophy for as long as I've been using it (for 20 years now). It breaks a lot less frequently than it used to.

It depends on whether or not latency is the constraint of throughput in your circumstances.

And that demonstrates the difference between a developer that is ready for promotion vs one that isn't. You need to be able to make the correct choices for your employer (even if they are not the best choices, or most interesting choices), and being able to recognize these is a skill.

It's fine to prefer the comfort of familiar problems and obstacles, but you shouldn't pretend to yourself that you haven't chosen to embrace them over fear of the unknown.

Instead of talking about skills, or personal efficiency, talk about technologies that you're going to introduce to your product, or some specific difficult problem that you're intending to solve.

Another next career step is to take ownership of things without needing to be asked or told, to create and execute plans, to raise and address problems pro-actively etc. And if your workspace doesn't give you opportunities to do it, and you want career progression, then go somewhere else.

This is bait right? Obviously the answer to this question is there is some population that are happy for there to be suffering so long as it benefits them, and then there is another population that is vehemently against this, and then there is one that is apathetic and tries to just get on with their lives.

Like with every major ethical crises ever.

I need a !remind me 15 years.

That argument seems crazy to me. 18th is so good. There are literally thousands of programming languages that it is competing with.

This is just not true. The Lisp family contains all conceivable variants of languages, from statically typed Coalton, to dynamically typed Scheme. From functional, immutable by default Clojure to the imperative-style of Common Lisp.

There are prologs, constraint solvers, ffis, JavaScript alternatives, garbage collected and not garbage collected languages that call themselves lisps.

I've seen a few of your comments here today, and generally speaking they are appeals to authority, ad-hominem attacks dressed in allusions to superiority in either knowledge or manners, and truisms without substance. In a manner of speaking: bait. So I guess I'm probably unsurprised if your experience of this is people seeming disagreeble towards you.

If nobody understood the argument, then it was either weak or unclearly communicated.

I think it would be a huge advantage to be taught by the person that wrote the textbook in a particular field.

I wouldn't argue about things that are a matter of taste normally, except that I've had the experience where I've turned down optimizer settings in order to debug some code better and then the had stack overflow.

Sigh and yet it continues to be true. You can make a pragmatic decision and rely on tail call optimisation for your specific case, but if you are writing a CL library, then it is not idiomatic to use recursion in the same way that you would for Clojure or Scheme.

Even with SBCL, for example, it doesn't have tail-call optimisation for all architectures at all optimisation levels.

They are as different from one another as Java is from C# is from JavaScript.