People are at least as often evaluating men's performances. i.e. "Was Stephen Hawking overhyped by other physicists to help him not die in poverty?", "How good was Riemann compared to Gauss?" etc. Not hard to find people who argue that Steve Jobs or Elon Musk are overrated buffoons
This is probably more of a managerial thing than anything else — after all, most men's performance undergoes constant evaluation. Certainly in the workplace, and often in personal relationships as well. If they fail, they don't get as much to eat and are typically deserted
And such evaluations are biased against praise, except for a deified few. For example, successful musicians frequently mention that record labels make them feel like underachievers, even when they top the charts
I agree, it's a huge trap. The right exploits leftists who insult normal people as dumb. It worked when they insulted George W Bush, who people identified with and found likeable, and was probably coached to bungle sentences despite likely not talking that way at Yale and Harvard; and when they insult Trump and his ideas, though he's perceptive and effective.
Many say it works because liberals now represent the professional-managerial class, who often come across to workers/poor as infuriatingly patronizing, slick and humiliating. Whereas many don't know who owns their big corporation, so they don't inspire such visceral feelings.
While some may argue that liberals aren't leftists (but are rather good-cop), nevertheless many leftists do this too. The dynamics are explained in Thomas Frank's book "Listen, Liberal", David Graeber's essay "Army of Altruists: On the alienated right to do good", and Participatory Economics's coverage of the coordinator class.
The US government has many military bases and troops stationed in other countries. It can project violence across the planet. Any entity with that power has strong ability to dictate what others do, and induce dependency.
https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/us-sending-more-troops-...
Safety of maritime shipping. The US Navy was created because ship captains kept getting ransomed by Moroccan pirates, since America gained independence their ships were no longer protected by the British Navy and became fair game.
I know it's a controversial doctrine, but power projection does have a hand in keeping the peace.
Is there any alternative to raises that don't lower employee performance, like some kind of bonus scheme? Or do you find some unfortunate relation between money vs motivation?
Truly unlimited PTO where you judge employees by their performance. I just spoke to my manager at the job I started late last year and he said it is customary for people to take 5-6 weeks kid a year.
Well, I think so. Because many didn't understand they were fascists too.
The fascism was always in the vast majority of us, if we wanted to look at it. Just look at the structure of our workplaces, which accounts for half our waking lives. There's no free speech in them. With few exceptions, they're intensely hierarchical, people passing orders downward. Those "unlucky" enough to make it inside one of them, often sleep in the nearby alley.
The bizarreness of this form of organization isn't lost on those on top of the hierarchy. They're used to battalions of people doing what they want, and they seek out philosophers who apply this vision to other aspects of life. It wasn't hard; for example, the US had a 4 year king anyway. Usually a warmonger callous to the vast majority of his population.
One problem is "calling out." Name-calling. The current administration is showing direct action, which impresses many who find their lives increasingly intolerable. Many didn't like him, but rather rationally rolled the dice with the change candidate, even if it was probably going to end up as bad change. Like hitting the computer.
I agree that wokeness is a big problem on the serious left. It was analyzed in high-profile leftist's Norman Finkelstein's "I’ll Burn That Bridge When I Get to It! Heretical Thoughts on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture, and Academic Freedom".
Many point it's from the professional/managerial/bureaucratic class, which never was into free speech to begin with. Take pg's mention of the Soviet Union. That's actually a country where that class overthrew the capitalists to become the ruling class. (They were called "The New Class" there. In countries like the US, they're above workers but subordinate to capitalists.)
And all this is a useful distraction: criticizing wokies distracts from the structure of power that leads to homelessness and working your one (1) life away under some boss. Which is ridiculous in the 21st century.
I think porting to k8s can succeed or fail, like any other project. I switched an app that I alone worked on, from Elastic Beanstalk (with Bash), to Kubernetes (with Babashka/Clojure). It didn't seem bad. I think k8s is basically a well-designed solution. I think of it as a declarative language which is sent to interpreters in k8s's control plane.
Obviously, some parts of took a while to figure out. For example, I needed to figure out an AWS security group problem with Ingress objects, that I recall wasn't well-documented. So I think parts of that declarative language can suck, if the declarative parts aren't well factored-out from the imperative parts. Or if the log messages don't help you diagnose errors, or if there isn't some kind of (dynamic?) linter that helps you notice problems quickly
In your team's case, more information seems needed to help us evaluate the problems. Why was it easier before to make testing environments, and harder now?
No doubt you know this, but Common Lisp's standardization gave leeway to implementations. So you could choose which implementation suits you better. Common Lisp is an umbrella for different Lisps to have some commonality. It was a process of negotiation, during a time when there were many design forks in the road, and diverse use-cases
For example, type declarations can enable performance optimizations, compiletime type checking, runtime type checking, IDE autocompletion, etc. Or they can be ignored, if compiler simplicity is more valued. All these things have engineering tradeoffs. For example, runtime checks may have runtime costs at odds with performance optimization
There might be higher-value improvements to Common Lisp, if higher quality code is desired
As someone who doesn't know much about types, do SBCL type declarations provide as good type-based development experience as OCaml and Rust?
And perhaps I wouldn't get your answer, I mean is there something fundamentally inadequate in the way SBCL declares types? I think there is a phrase for it in CS theory.
> As someone who doesn't know much about types, do SBCL type declarations provide as good type-based development experience as OCaml and Rust?
First of all, op was talking about strongly typed languages. Asking are they good as statically typed ones like Rust and OCaml is raising the goal posts quite a bit.
Second of all, SBCL can indeed have a subsection of its code expressed in OCaml-like static types, see
To add to the other comment, it is also important to understand in the more interactive mode of developing in CL. You basically have the program always running, fixing bugs and adding features while it is running.
You simply don't have the problem of batch style programming where you have written a bunch of code and now you want to know if it works so you run a lot of static analysis on it beforehand because running it and getting it to the point and state that is relevant costs time.
In CL you don't end up with lots of code that has never been run. You have constantly run it during development and are much more confident about its behavior. So just having this interactive way of programming already leads to much more reliable software. It is not a replacement for static analysis or unit testing of course but another pillar to help you write more correct software.
This is probably more of a managerial thing than anything else — after all, most men's performance undergoes constant evaluation. Certainly in the workplace, and often in personal relationships as well. If they fail, they don't get as much to eat and are typically deserted
And such evaluations are biased against praise, except for a deified few. For example, successful musicians frequently mention that record labels make them feel like underachievers, even when they top the charts