Well, if you need the performance increase, the yes. Otherwise your options are to (maybe) tweak your current implementation so it continues to work or rewrite the functionality to be compatible with the view layer. This is the same trade-off you make with React since it's basically the same technology.
> so that those in the continuing lane feel morally obligated to let those queued up in.
I'm pretty well convinced that we'd never hit critical mass of drivers that feel morally obligated to even moderately inconvenience themselves to benefit the merging of others. That merge pattern is a recipe for stalled traffic in the right hand lane.
Well, Clojure also was a mess when I tried it (2 years ago maybe?). Leiningen (a/the build system) was pretty slow, and I couldn't find a way to use the language in a more lisp-like way easily, like editing a few files and (re)loading them into a running REPL (other than iterating through all buffers in Emacs and loading/evaluating them manually; there may have been other problems as well, I don't remember). You know, like you can edit a few Java files in Eclipse, press shift-ctrl-s, and have the new code hot-deployed into your debugging session.
Maybe the people who wrote the Clojure tutorials considered that question to be SO natural they didn't even mention it, but I found it very unintuitive. And running a very slow tool on every code change and waiting for the build and then starting the program is very unnatural and un-lisp-like.
Common Lisp is a bit old by now, but it's always been very stable and fast. Maybe Racket is a more modern+mature Lisp family member that's nice to try.
I also tried getting into Clojure around that time. I was coming from CL where we have nice things like conditions and restarts, dynamic variables, and CLOS -- being able to hit an error in the debugger, inspect the slot of the instance of some object that caused the error and recompile the class definition to fix the error without restarting the program is really nice (all of the running instances are updated). I was not used to Clojure's unhelpful tracebacks.
I don't understand what age has to do with anything... CL is still a good language.
I'd also say that one might do well to explore it, even if you don't plan to use it for everything. I'm definitely a Lisp neophyte (Scheme in college, no Common lisp, and then ~6 years with some lisp-like proprietary framework), but there are some things I really miss from it.
As some have said, it's worth learning because of the way it can change the way you think about things. It sounds hokey and trite, or like someone's trying to be smug ("I'm in the secret lisp club!"), but I genuinely feel profoundly grateful to have been exposed to Lisp. (To be fair, I also really like programming in Python for _many_ of the same reasons I enjoyed programming in Lisp.)
To me, logic says you should call the airline and see specifically how they're rerouting the flight to avoid this kind of danger. If you can't get an answer, don't get a satisfactory answer, or don't know how to tell what answer would satisfy you, book another flight.
In general, flying is safer than either driving or walking in urban areas. But most flights don't happen over not-technically-but-actually-definitely war zones. So ... make sure whatever flight you're on avoids the area entirely.
It may seem counterintuitive, but that's a relatively common result in machine learning. Often the issue isn't so much the quantity of data as the representative nature of your training data used to create the model. All other things being equal, a larger set of training data is likely to be more consistent with the true data. Caveats abound, but that's the general idea.
One way to think about it is to look at problems with human perception like forced perspective. It's relatively easy to create a situation where the only available information results in mental models that describe the size of an object incorrectly. Given a different point of view (i.e. more information) the faults in the model become obvious.
> the good old boy networks you see in rural Texas
Arlington, a city of 370k smack between Dallas and Fort Worth is rural?
So the cops will get jumpy and start shooting once a hispanic kid shows up (which, one of them was) because they're good old boys from rural Texas (which Arlington isn't) should we keep digging or would you like to admit that your suppositions don't really have a foundation here?
Arlington isn't exactly "rural", but most of the town is definitely not what most people would call "urban". Dallas has a lot of suburbs that are similar; they're basically subdivisions full of 5,000 sq ft houses built on cheap farm land. Also, being Texas, there's a pretty good chance that anyone you encounter is armed, which makes the cops a lot more cautious.
I'm not saying people shouldn't videotape the cops, but that they should continue to do so at their own risk.
...what else do you expect? HN is full of young idealists convinced they both understand and can change the world. In the realm of computer software where most have spent their lives, they could be right. In other areas ... not so much.
It's incredibly difficult to fix what you don't understand, and most of the world doesn't understand politics. Especially young people. Most especially young people who have dedicated all their time and energy to something that isn't politics.
...and restricting what is taught to what can be measured is a bad idea. As is putting so much emphasis on your measurements (and little enough work into creating them) that teachers have an incentive to teach the content on the test rather than the full breadth of the subject.
Most of my math classes growing up ended with a week or two of "here's how what you just learned applies in the real world / future classes". It was one of the few redeeming aspects of my early math education, and is probably one of the first things to get cut when schools want to beef up test scores.