Such a weird take on HN. Lisp should be experimented with if only to appreciate the profound beauty of a small, powerful, cohesive design. It is a wholly different feeling from industry standard languages which are constantly changing.
In Lisp, almost all of the language’s power is in “user space.”
The ramifications for that are deep and your beliefs as to whether that is good are largely shaped by whether you believe computation is better handled by large groups of people (thus, languages should restrict users) or smaller groups of people (thus, languages should empower users).
Well the main point is that there are changes that for most languages would need a change in the compiler/interpreter itself. However in lisp those kinds of things can be done in userspace
> I only really hear about people being ecstatic about AI online, by people who are, for lack of a better term, really online, and who do not have the skills, know-how, or ability, to make art themselves.
Yes, I've noticed this. The people who are excited about it usually come off as opportunistic (hence the "breathless joy"), and not really interested in letting whatever art/craft they want to make deeply change them. They just want the recognition of being able to make the thing without the formative work. (I hesitate to point this out, anticipating allegations of elitism.)
Plus, really online people tend to dominate online discussions, giving the impression that the public will be happy to consume only AI generated things. Then again, the public is happy to consume social media engagement crap, so I'm very curious what the revealed preference is here.
The value in learning this stuff is that it changes you. I'll be forever indebted to my guitar teacher partially because he teaches me to do the work, and that evidence of doing the work is manifest readily, and to play the long, long game.
The Internet, where the comment section contains a bunch of people cosplaying as compilers that somehow manage to be more pedantic than the Rust borrow checker.
Management fat? Sure. C-Suite level? Nah. Boeing's last two failed CEOs left with tens of millions of dollars worth of golden parachute; we've seen a massive upwards trend in CEO pay over the last few decades.
Musk got $44 billion for being a part-time CEO at Tesla, even.
CEO is the riskiest, high profile hire. Million dollar golden parachutes are a rounding error distraction. I'm not justifying them, but it's generally just contractual, and the cost of getting rid of a low performer (which is no different to the rank and file, just at a much lower unit cost).
Risky for the company, not for the individual. Hence why they are happy to pay what is, at the corporate level, a paltry sum to make a problem go away. It just happens to be a rather large sum at the individual level.
A bad CEO can easily ruin hundreds of billions or trillions in value. Some tens of millions to be rid of the problem is a no brainer.
GeoGuessr-like sites are going to get trolled hard with AI photos of nonexistent locations.
reply