If you're a power user, the sooner you learn Emacs the better as the synergies with any Lisp language (particularly Common Lisp) are simply too strong to be ignored and there is no contemporary alternative that rivals it.
For new users, this looks like a welcome alternative to messy things like Lem that never really worked very well for me.
For historical interest, Lem did used to advertise itself as a Common Lisp development tool specifically, but that has changed relatively recently (past year?). From my distant vantage point, it looks like general interest in it grew, and Lem itself evolved in general-purpose directions, so they pivoted the messaging to be about it serving as a general-purpose editor instead of one just for Common Lisp.
Emacs on native Windows has to go through the Win32 API for everything - file I/O, process spawning, subprocesses. Packages that shell out constantly (lsp-mode, magit, etc) will feel sluggish because spawning processes on Windows is genuinely slow compared to Unix. The more shell-heavy your config, the worse it gets. This isn't really Emacs' fault.
I really don't understand devs still insisting on running Emacs on Windows natively. Come on, guys, WSL2 been around like forever. You get real fork/exec speeds, proper shell integration, the full Unix toolchain, etc. Why choose inflicting pain instead of a trodden, well-known, existing path?
There's definitely something to be said for giving interesting people a platform to express their views unconditionally. Unfortunately, that can also be a very dangerous thing. I have been less and less impressed over the years with Lex's approach here.
I'm personally very glad that Dwarkesh isn't like that. He's not perfect, but I think he's doing a way better job than other podcasters in the field right now.
I'm a random dude on the Internet, but my partner completed her PhD at MIT. While there I knew and knew of a few PhD grads who worked at MIT in some non-tenure-track role (postdoc, staff researcher, etc). Typically for a couple years and then they get a better-paying or more permanent job. But several remained "affiliated" in some way. They kept their MIT website/email, some in academia continued to collaborate to some extent. Things like that. But AFAIK they weren't getting a paycheck from MIT. And it's somewhere between neat and genuinely professionally valuable to be affiliated w/ a prestigious university, so I don't blame them for claiming affiliation. My best guess is he's "affiliated" in a similar way.
That's quite incredible. I had noticed that Fridman never challenges anybody. As a separate point, I never watched his interview with Zelensky because I read a headline somewhere about that interview that made me sick. I guess he did challenge somebody finally. Disgusting.
Very smart people on discord sounds like an oxymoron: why would anyone very smart contribute to the siloization of knowledge and support grow a corporate entity possessing highly questionable incentives? Discord is not a great place to discuss anything of substance.
If that's not clear to some now, it will be once monetization kicks in and the inevitable blowup and loss of accumulated knowledge follows.
You're using Discord to describe the same thing that could easily be applied to any social network.
Yes, it's borne of teenagers and gaming, but for all it's dark corners it's just the modern IRC. There are good servers, there are bad servers, there are servers full of idiots and there are servers full of very smart people.
(and we're way past monetisation kicking in, the first paid options launched almost 10 years ago)
> why would anyone very smart contribute to the siloization of knowledge and support grow a corporate entity possessing highly questionable incentives
Some smart people aren't as concerned with knowledge siloization as other smart people. I'm sure if you went to their Discord and suggested an alternative platform with the same popularity and feature set they'd at least hear you out.
You're implying that those who are throwing hissy fits about "master" are aware of bitkeeper documentation and their (wildly unchecked) emotional response to this matter is nuanced enough to take "provenance" of technical terms into account.
Do you even realize how ridiculous these nonsensical "arguments" sound?
Ah yes, the if we change something that would mean we would have to change everything and that would be absurd, so we can't change anything ever argument. Classic.
Making "some people" happier isn't zero cost if the people in question are intolerant lunatics with ideas corrosive to the social fabric. It's one reason why the pendulum is swinging fiercely in the other direction.
TIL "I'm uncomfortable calling it master-slave, can we do main-replica?" is the idea of an "intolerant lunatic" that is "corrosive to the social fabric".
Good Lord, just listen to yourself.
Red-lined districts still shape America to this day and several red states have been rampant on racial districting to screw minority communities. You can't even pretend the history of slavery is in the past in America.
> Computer science would have progressed much further and faster if all of the time and effort that has been spent maintaining and nurturing Unix had been spent on a sounder operating system. We hope that one day Unix will be relingquished to the history books and museums of computer science as an interesting, albeit costly, footnote.
UHH is obviously sound but doesn't go far enough in criticizing the unix disaster.
These days executing random code is standard and if you don't do it you're wierd. Case 1: browsers automatically execute code from random sources. Case 2: People tell you to curl someurl.whatever | sh to install compilers (ie, the only way to use the rust rustc on non-rolling distros). And it goes on and on. It's not really an exception to standard practice to install applications. The only difference here is that it is from an actual human person instead of a corporation. They are at least somewhat trustable, unlike corporations which always have their profit motive to sell you.
Also, if you only run programs that have been approved by a third party organization first you're really restricting yourself.
1. Browsers aggressively sandbox the code they run.
2. If you’re running curl | sh on random urls you don’t trust, you’re asking for trouble.
Running random executables you find online is a good way to get spyware and ransomware installed. I’m not saying that’s the case for re:Amp, but it’s absolutely still valid to tell people not to run random programs they find online.
reply