narag

Actually, "pharisaical" is the dictionary definition for this kind of hypocrisy.

There're good reasons it hasn't been done more: text is good for troubleshooting, "every program should do one thing well" and maybe preventing lock-in.

But with programming tools reaching maturity, we'll see more of this. Also there's an AI-related aspect: bots can understand structure just fine.

As for AI being the new version of this, I don't think so. The effect of this tech is more likely to remove one layer in the hierarchy. But maybe it's your boss, not you, that will get replaced.

Many people try to do it with many different methods. So you're right it's not one thing. Also nobody will teach you all the techniques because they're keeping theirs secret.

Everybody lies.

Much discussion about the temporal distance between the described events and the writers, but what about the distance between the writers and the text we know?

Any hope earlier copies will surface?

My favourite recipe is to sauté chopped onions and peppers, a little garlic and black pepper, add shrimp, cuttlefish and clams, and then top up the water to the required amount and add the rice when it boils. Six minutes with the vitro on and, in ten more, it is delicious.

Change the seafood for mushrooms, chicken or whatever you like.

Please don't think that I'm trying to suggest... anything . It's just that I'm getting used to read this pattern in the output of LLMs. "While this and that is great...". Maybe we're mimicking them now? I catch myself using these disclaimers even in spoken language.

So for me it would be: everything that makes Lisp programming easier, like:

- Use a Lisp implementation that's not tied to the editor.

- Slime/Sly + Quicklisp functionality out of the box.

- Integrated syntax awareness, preferably "syntax directed" for programming.

There is more, but it'll be obvious (like updated defaults and looks) unless you want to make an outright clone, or at least a direct replacement option, I wonder if that's what you mean: "rewriting Emacs" seems to suggest it is.

It's difficult. These big old projects like Emacs, and Lisp itself, have both succeeded and failed. There are features that made them last decades and others that made them stop attracting new users. How to capture the appealing parts without reproducing the quirks?

"Positronic" came to my mind.

What's not so useful: mandatory comments. A public API should be thoroughly documented, but some shops insist on writing comments for every function in the code, even private ones and even if its purpose is so obvious that the comment just rephrases its name. This practice is not only a waste of time, but also insensitizes you about comments and teach you to ignore them.

Other wasteful comments are added by some tools. I hate the one that marks every loop wiht a //for or //try comment.

Maybe most everything doesn't deserve to survive. Future humans will be busy enough living their lives, to learn an ever growing history of long dead ancestors. For them, it'll be mildly interesting to know that something was invented one thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand years ago, maybe the name of a chosen few relevant persons that first did something. But a complete record of everything that ever happened? I don't think so.

Most TV and movies feel horriby dated in a few decades.

Actually, I watch TV and movies done now that seem horribly dated.

I believe that any experiment that involves the whole life of someone is doomed and useless.

Just read after the headline...

Not sure if removing experience would have helped. After all, qualifications on nearly-extinct tech was an advantage in this case.

My problem is that I almost always get hired when I can talk with the technical lead. But I get filtered out before that step, like dozens of times past year.

There's a curious evolution about abroxan's rep. If I'm not mistaken it was Dior that first used the name instead of ambergris in the publicity materials. I guess they were trying to avoid the "they kill the poor whales to make fucking perfumes". But they ended with the "I can't stand that synthetic ambroxan crap, I must be allergic and everybody's wearing Sauvage now".

New perfumes use some other bullshit names like "driftwood", "marine notes" or just "amber" (a very different stuff).

But when it's some famous "difficult" person like Jobs or Gates, or in fiction like Doctor House, the version of them that we see is idealized.

Actually this is the exact counterpoint of TFA: using the inexistent genius as an excuse for the trade-off. Imitating the genius is more difficult than just being a jerk.