Now that I'm out of the corporate tyranny and have my own company, I use lisp for everything. There's certain satisfaction in writing config files and persisting data directly in s-expressions. Any json requirements are triggered by exports to foreign systems.
Does it really matter? There's a point in every Lisper's life, a threshold after which the question becomes immaterial - you'd stop thinking about intricacies of whatever Lisp and focus on the platform specifics instead. Any given day I might program in three-four different Lisp dialects, e.g. Clojure/Clourescript, Fennel, Elisp, Janet, etc. and it practically feels like I'm using the same PL. While switching between TS and JS (same family) never feels even close - there's always some mental burden.
not philosophically, but certainly practically. To double down, if all lisps are roughly equivalent from a language POV, then you'd want to pick the one or two that will give you the most practical advantage (libraries, documentation, dev environment, etc.)
I would call these different dialects of Lisp. The data doesn’t have to be a function. It’s illustrative. The patterns of application still work. What’s the difference if delimiters are different or if you are calling JVM libraries? The high-level ideas are still right there. Consider JavaScript. It is definitely not a Lisp, but if you model it as Lisp in C’s clothes, then all of a sudden IIFEs make total sense. The point is that it’s a helpful mental model for languages other than Lisp.
Limitation is the wrong way to think about things when computational equivalence is in play. It's about mental foundation. Lisp at its core is like driving a Turing machine, Clojure is not.
If the difference didn't matter, we wouldn't have so many different lisps. Obviously the difference mattered enough to the people that created Common Lisp when Scheme already existed. Rich Hickey thought it mattered when he created a completely new Lisp instead of just porting Scheme to the JVM.
> If the difference didn't matter, we wouldn't have so many different lisps
Literally the opposite. We can make and use so many, because writing them is more or less the same. We can quickly throw together a new lisp for a new platform or such and use it without problem.
Technically when you write in the domain, you are effectively making your own Lisp and then using it. It’s one of the amazing things that macros can do.
It's the mustard seed that keeps growing! And without the fragmentation other PL's suffer from, which are reminiscent of the Tower of Babel, conversely.
MSFT won't sign non-disclosures, but they have policies regarding not using your data to train their models. Just trust them if you want to use azure -except for that rogue employee part I guess.
Use python or whatever to build the llm, use lisp to explore and infer from the edges of what the llm has to offer. I don't do anything but lisp these days. Been waiting my whole career to be at this point. I'll never "write" a line of C# again. Just my taste and pref.
I personally don't know anything about LispWorks except for the name. My pref for Franz is the commercial quality and the toolchain. If you have forgotten your graph fundamentals, Allegro Graph will make you want to get back into it. Very powerful tool for proofs and modeling the world.
Vasellating. TurboVision was awesome, but it was pushing the boundary of TUI, which in my mind was great for moving hard copy to computer entered use case. To wit, hard copy on your right side, you transfer data to app without looking at screen, but just looking at hard copy, remembering when/where to hit return key, maybe tab for prior field, stuff like that.
But hey, if the screen is drawn 24 x 80 with extended ascii, it's TUI. And man, loved the "absolute" keyword in turbo pascal. Instant screen writes when writing to a 2 dimensional array.
It was something like screen: array[1..80,1..25] of byte absolute $B800:0000; So, just use all the extended ascii to assign chars to cells to draw boxes for screens, buttons, tables, whatever. Instant update.
1. Attack surface for agents is tantamount to a virus.
2. Any way for an agent to touch something is a potential compromised vector.
3. The mitigation is controlling the blast radius.
4. Sandboxing capability will have to be baked into architecture.
5. Mitigation includes measuring cost of blast radius.
6. All agent orchestration will likely require an andon cord.
Did you read the paper? There exists a technology that has purely enforceable property rights. What is that actually worth? I don't know.
Yeah yeah, I've read the arguments about liquidity issues, shutting down the rails, making it illegal to trade, etc. but that's beside the point and depends on a thousand future variables to play out. So I don't know if btc will make it or not, but I do know property rights mean everything to humans. They literally determine whether not one is a slave (I am my own property). So just the ability to have a technology enables pure property rights to a world where nobody really has enforceable property rights over anything seems pretty interesting to me.
A 5$ wrench bar is enough to make you give me all the moneroj you have eventually. I won't know when that point is and will just continue using the wrench until I am sufficiently sure you have given me all.
> So just the ability to have a technology enables pure property rights to a world where nobody really has enforceable property rights over anything seems pretty interesting to me.
Bitcoin doesn't enforce property rights. The only thing you own is your bitcoin. The fact that I "own" my house and the land it is built on is enforced by the state with guns.
You're not getting what I'm saying. Before this technology, the concept of property rights could not be defended, depending on the attacker. This tech allows that, even if it is just for one use case.
How many degrees of separation is this from adult regulation? Want to provide age information to a site so you can look at porn without any guarantee that information won't be used for additional profit? That's a real thing in the US.
Government assumes zero expected trust reciprocation because they don't have to provide trust reciprocation and can do what they want, and government is comprised of co-opted humans.
Err on the side of sovereign freedom. Arguing about banning this or regulating that is all second principle stuff, and nanny states all strike me as the tail-end of civilization.
I value my kid not being exposed to porn as a child well above your right to privacy while watching it.
The ubiquity of the internet and children’s access to it is something we haven’t reckoned with yet. The differences between pre social media and mobile vs now is immense. The people seeking to capitalize on getting children addicted to something are numerous and well motivated by LTV.
Their incentives and the wellbeing of children are directly at odds. We already regulate things that are addictive for children.
People might give their kids a drink extralegally. Nobody is saying “hey kid, why don’t we watch porn together so you can develop healthier habits.” Nobody is creating a “starter Instagram” with their teenage daughter.
These forms of media are NOT SAFE FOR KIDS. They have observably negative population wide outcomes and are as reasonably banned as lead in pipes.
Oh, I don’t let my children have electronic devices at all.
But schools do. Their friends all have Internet enabled devices in their pockets. The library he goes to has poorly secured devices. The school library does too.
This is what I mean by the ubiquity of the internet. It is functionally impossible to control access to the internet as a parent and allow your children to develop independence.
I do what I can, and have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars at this point to opt in to like minded environments. My oldest at ten is observably different than children at his age and doing great.
His friends that come from poorer families, like the ones that I grew up in, might as well have Roblox as a third parent and suffer from ridiculous behavioral problems. The school curriculum in SFUSD is years behind my curriculum was in Georgia when it was a bottom quintile outcome program.
It does not take much looking to see something is thoroughly wrong. I think a lot of it has to do with the mass experiment of Internet access we’ve run on children.
Funny enough I lived in the Atlanta metro area from 1996 to 2022. I had a house built in Decatur in 2003.
I started dating my now wife in 2011. She lived in Alpharetta. As soon as I met my now step sons who were 9 and 14, my first thought was in going to have to sell my house and move. There is no way in hell they are going to survive Decatur public schools.
We moved to Johns Creek at first and then had a house built in Forsyth County. Yeah this Forsyth County
The attitudes in the burbs of Forsyth changed since then as people came from other places and it grew. But we very much stuck out. My son loved it there and still lives in that area and rents a house nearby where you use to live.
Strangely enough I live in the same general area - right in the middle of Gwinnett. What an odd coincidence that the three of us happened to come across eachother in an HN thread before knowing this.
"It does not take much looking to see something is thoroughly wrong."
Agreed, but observation suggests that it takes much more effort to do something about it—effort that the majority cannot muster or are unwilling to commit to.
"Want to provide age information to a site so you can look at porn without any guarantee that information won't be used for additional profit?"
That's the Orwellian payoff: people self-censoring and frightened to act for rear of retribution or their reputation. It's the authoritarian's ideal approach to control.
Aside: The 1.3B investment in UHC suggests BH thinks Obamacare will be around for awhile. That, or reversing healthcare costs will not happen for the time being.
