MikeOfAu

"near consensus" .. yeah I've come to realise that this is not as straightforward as it is often presented.

For a start, a scientist would not find the term "consensus" at all compelling. Things are either proven or disproven when it comes to science. "Percentage of Consensus" is more about social engineering, and it is more something a journalist might seize upon.

But if you DO want to use the figure ... it has been pointed out that the 97% figure generally quoted came from a survey. Another survey at precisely the same time showed 51%. Which survey should be used? As I understand it, the 51% one apparently had a bigger sample size. One certainly sounds a lot less certain than the other.

And finally, as was my point from the last post, even if you accept the 97% figure, don't you have to worry if there is the chance it is achieved through fear of reprisals for disagreement? Let them speak. Let's hear their crazy ideas. Crush their ideas, not their dissent.

My favourite left-wing commentator used to always say "the solution to bad-speak is more-speak". He was saying that silencing is bad.

Anyway, that's enough of this debate for me. Frankyl, it is all very unclear to me. I envy those who are completely certain.

I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a continually rolling narrative about an impending catastrophe in 15 years from now.

In 1988, New York was going to be underwater by 2000. Etc. It is crazy to look back at the endless series of predictions - all of them very alarming and all of them, it turns out, completely wrong.

It is also worth remembering that in the 1970s the huge, science-based headline was that we were sliding into an ice age. The 1930s and 1940s had been particularly hot, and by the 1970s the decline in average temps had everyone worried. Newspapers ate it up. Like they are now. The predictions were alarming.

I draw no conclusions about his legal win.

But I do note that he is a scientist who worked on the reef and he completely disagrees.

I additionally note that he was pretty aggressively silenced and his livelihood taken away, "unfairly" according to the courts. I worry that this is how you get to 99% - crushing dissent through intimidation, and not debating? He says he only spoke up because he was so close to retirement age, and he was only able to achieve a legal win because of crowdfunding. Most other scientists are not in that position - the consequences of speaking up would appear terrifying.

Dunno, maybe he is a complete crank, but you can see how it might give a dispassionate observer pause for thought and a bit of discomfort.

For balance, I would point out that there is an alternative point of view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7j75L38PlI

I find it hard to know what to believe. 5 years ago it seemed clear everything was going to hell in a handbasket, now I'm more sceptical, a lot more sceptical, but ultimately unsure.

I'd feel a lot less sceptical if those disagreeing weren't immediately crushed and silenced. If they are so clearly wrong, surely it is easy to show that? Moral emergencies cause humans to behave very badly. Lynch mobs and all that, or Cursaders up to their knees in blood on behalf of their God.

The journalist who wrote this graduated two months ago.

Since then he has churned out a few negative articles about Telsa, while also being breathless with excitement and uncritical about how VW and Ford announced some future collaboration on Electric vehicles.

I've been following Tesla news fairly closely for maybe 18 months. This kind of misinformation-based article happens regularly. The combined forces of big oil and big auto have considerable sway over certain kinds of news organisation. Remember that Tesla spends $0 on advertising with them.

And then you have the billions invested by those who are short the stock.

That's a powerful coalition of forces going all in on discrediting Tesla any way they can.

In fairness, there's too much fanboy stuff in the opposite direction too.

But overall, from my reading, Tesla appears to have some serious structural advantages over all other comers in the expanding EV market.

LISPs have this idea so deeply etched into them that code itself is data - homoiconicity.

In the Clojure community, for example, you will find that the primacy of data is well understood and used. Data-Oriented design and all that. You'll see the aphorism "Data is the ultimate in late binding" mentioned.

You will also find that it is immutable data that reigns supreme.

Notice also how, in a reactive system, it is the data (or the arrival of it) that coordinates the functions/processing, not the other way around.

I was exposed to the "data first" (and non-OO) way of thinking about 5 years ago, after being in the OO world since the mid-80s. I haven't looked back. When the penny drops for you on this it is a profound and liberating moment (or at least it was for me).

The rise of Kubernetes will likely enhance go's presence in devops.

You no doubt know this, but just in case ... Dirac completely transforms that CLJS debugging experience (in a positive way): https://github.com/binaryage/dirac

Tone matters too.

> Clojure is a language for people who know what they are doing by people who know what they are doing.

Oh, goodie. I'm part of an elite club with high barriers to entry.

Please everyone, upvote dantiberian's answer. He nails it.

The moment you get over expecting Clojure to behave like a typical "open source" project and understand it is Rich Hickey's personal project (+ Cognitect's), which happens to also be available to you, if you want to use it, then the whole thing makes more sense. Some frustration disappears. You know where you stand, and what to expect.

Hickey and Cognitect have every right to run it the way they like. IMO, the only thing they don't do right is to communicate their intentions. There's a pretense maintained around it being an "open source" project, when it really isn't, not in the way that python is open source.

Use it if it works for you. Otherwise don't. Don't expect to have a voice, and don't expect you'll be able to contribute much, and don't expect that something will be fixed unless it suits Hickey's Cognitect's agenda.

I use ClojureScript, knowing and accepting these things (with some sadness), because I think the language gives me a competitive edge.

From Alex Miller via slack:

> will be in cljs as well, but not on first release

> most of the code should work as is, most of the tricky bits are around vars

> Given that there is a supported and suggested pathway to achieving core functionality of the library which involves the use of metadata to define the semantics of your components I stand by my statement

Sorry, but you are just completely wrong. Have you ever used Reagent? Reagent doesn't require the use of metadata AT ALL, EVER. Much less in some fundamental way, as you claim.

> Absolutely avoid metadata. The worst thing ever is using it like how Reagent does in ClojureScript where it actually provides important program semantics.

Eh? Reagent does not require any metadata, ever. Much less metadata what provides "important program semantics". So I'm pretty puzzled by your comment. Either you have never used Reagent, or our definitions of metadata is really different, which would be odd, given ClojureScript is pretty clear on what metadata is and isn't.

Optionally, as a convenience, Reagent allows "key" to be provided as metadata but that's really a React thing (and available the same way in OM) and that's because it allows React to supply better performance in some cases, but even then you can supply key via means other than metadata if somehow that offends you. If this is somehow "the worst thing ever" I'd suggest you have lived an overly sheltered life :-)

I was an early adopter of Tableau and fairly enthusiastic. But then I had a truly terrible licencing experience with them and have, since, refused to have ANYTHING to do with them.

Nice enough software, but a sleazy organisation. Use one of the other good alternatives.

I've used clojurescript commercially for a couple of years. It has been a good experience.

More than anything it has completely changed my world view (and I'm a very experienced, older programmer who has seen a bit). I feel very lucky to have had this opportunity.

IMO, some of the issues you raise are genuine, some not.

For example, the JVM startup time issue is never, ever a problem. If it is, you aren't using the tools right.

I use Cursive and figwheel etc, so I find the tooling generally fine and in many ways excellent. The trajectory in this area is good.

Debugging initially can be rough. Knowing about things like cljs-devtools can dramatically improve things. But, yeah, valid point.

And, yes, poor error messages can definitely be a problem initially -- although this has improved over the last year.

To get going, I'd recommend you use this set of technologies:

- use Cursive/InteliiJ https://cursiveclojure.com/

- use reagent, rather than om. http://reagent-project.github.io/

- use figwheel

- use cljs-devtools with Canary for debugging

- use Schema to provide faint typing - https://github.com/Prismatic/schema

- perhaps use clairvoyant for debugging https://github.com/spellhouse/clairvoyant

- use timbre for logging https://github.com/ptaoussanis/timbre

- use re-frame https://github.com/Day8/re-frame (if the app is slightly more complex) <--- warning I'm biased

- perhaps use re-com - https://github.com/Day8/re-com <--- warning I'm biased

- you may also be interested in the head start provided by http://www.luminusweb.net/ for client/server

-

Perhaps just start here: https://github.com/Day8/re-frame-template and work out. (I'm biased)

Good luck.

While looking over a recently presented slidedeck, I came across this slide:

https://speakerdeck.com/chantastic/inline-styles-react-europ...

In that moment, I was genuinely taken aback to realise that by using clojurescript and reagent, I was operating in what some regarded as the future. I knew it already, of course, but that moment pushed it home. Nice!

re-frame is pretty handy too. (But I'm the author, so on that point I'm pretty biased).

Where did the idea of (db action) => db come from? A reduction?

Also such as: https://github.com/Day8/re-frame

My take: Facebook are killing it because they are pursuing functional, reactive, declarative designs.

The next step on is to consider using a LANGUAGE that naturally supports this paradigm: Clojurescript or Elm are the obvious choices.

This dreamy utopian future https://speakerdeck.com/chantastic/inline-styles-react-europ... … already exists in both ClojureScript and Elm!! For example, the Reagent library in ClojureScrpt. Is insane popularity imminent?

Shameless plug for an MVC layer: https://github.com/Day8/re-frame

No zippers? Why then does the official OM docs say "Cursors are conceptually related to functional lenses and zippers". Remember this thread relates to how simple or easy OM is to grok.

And no message channels? Why then does the intermediate tutorial plunge straight into the use of core.async?

I have no problem with OM being considered a grand experiment. I wouldn't use it but it has been an interesting idea generator. Please remember context here - I was responding to someone who claims astonishment that OM could be considered difficult to understand.

But, in terms of grand experiments, let's remember that Reagent came out at exactly the same time as OM. And Hoplon lead the way on Reative (FRP) long before either. So, having lived through it, I'd feel very uncomfortable with any overreaching claims about OM succeeding in inspiring all the others into the alternative MVC holy land. The others were there already.

OM components are complex. There are global transaction/message channels, component local state, an OO backpane, lifecycle functions, functional zippers, hierarchy organised data, etc. I can't understand how anyone could claim it to be simple.

Look at this example code, apparently held in such high regard that it is referenced off the front page of OM: https://github.com/swannodette/om-sync To me that is a ghastly, inexcusably complected hairball.

Don't get me wrong. I really like clojurescript. I program in it daily, on purpose. It is just that I'm shocked at the level of devotion and adulation for OM when there are really lovely alternatives like Reagent and Rum.

Yes, indeed, this approach from Famous is VERY similar (in structure) to both: - re-frame (https://github.com/Day8/re-frame) and - the Elm Architecture. (https://github.com/evancz/elm-architecture-tutorial/).

Of course, both re-frame (in ClojureScript) and Elm have the massive advantage of being in functional languages which allow for FRP, and embrace immutability by default.

Can't tell you what an advantage that is.

This is a slightly long read, but it will give you a feel for it: https://github.com/Day8/re-frame

(disclosure: I am the author)

Ahh. You just haven't been around Python for long enough. Python used to get new server framework every other week. There was a Cambrian Explosion of them at one stage. Then it settled down. Javascript is still evolving. React has just kicked off a whole new iteration by putting the reactive/functional/immutable paradigm firmly on the agenda. That's going to take a couple of years to play out.

BTW, If you want to see what that combination looks like in a more suited language then look towards ClojureScript or Elm.

Grains injure and inflame the gut walls OF EVERONE. A cascade of negative effects follow.

And, yes, those with celiac disease are particularly obviously effected.

Dropping grains will decrease gut inflammation. That has all sorts of benefits. Your friend had obvious symptoms which you don't, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't benefit, perhaps greatly. Give it a go for a month. See what happens.

Milk contains a gluten-like protein called Cesin which is gut-inflammatory. The liquid part of Milk also contains a bunch of dissolved cow hormones.

Other Diary like cheese, yougout & cream MIGHT be okay for you (depends on your tolerance) but Milk should be avoided forever. The advice I've read is to avoid all diary for a month (giving the gut time to heal) and then reintroduce it and watch the results (feelings of bloating, energy levels, etc). In that way you can figure out how sensitive you are.

"Good Calorie, Bad Calories" was a pivotal book for me. It freed me up. I realised that much of what we're told about nutrition is backed by bad science.

Since then I've spent the last few years reading everything I can lay my hands on and I wrote up what I'd found in a document for friends and family: http://bit.ly/cxZNG9

I await Taubes' next book with interest.