I am going to continue eating meat and plants but that's because the choice between eating plants or meat misses the point
The issue here is the industrialisation of the land and the shortcuts that farmers are doing that essentially kill the land, animals and plants in a way that is unmaintainable
The way this should work is animals should be herded on to land to eat and poo, once the grasses are nearly eaten the animals should be rotated on to other fields, the new grass regrows in this fresh environment because it has no competitor and plenty of fertiliser this process kills weeds and rejuvenates soil ready for planting
This mimics the nomadic lives that early humans would have led, following their herds of animals to fresh new pastures
Then the farmers worked out they didn't need animals to do this process they could just plow their fields and then that gets rid of the weeds, not quite as good as animals doing it in terms of soil health but effective and quick
Then the farmers were sold weed killers which meant they didn't need to plow their field, they just needed to buy GMO glyphosate resistant seeds and flood their fields with glyphosate, some types of crops are even killed close to harvest with glyphosate so it'll be in your food at high rates for certain crops
The problem with this approach is glyphosate is assumed safe because its mechanism for killing weeds is based on a system we don't directly have as humans, but our gut bacteria do, it also competes with glycine in our bodies used to create proteins, I wouldn't want to drink glyphosate from the bottle but it's being added to my food so effectively I do that
It also degrades the soil quality into dust, instead of being full of earth worms which would normally feed the birds, the local wildlife etc
So these mono culture fields are just turning huge swathe of land into sterile dust bowls that exacerbate climate change
Then these crops are either sold directly to me as a plant eater or given to the animals to make them bulk up and sick
As someone who eats a lot of meat I want my animals to be grass fed (or their natural diet) I don't want them to have to take antibiotics because the farmer needed to bulk them up with cheap glyphosate laced mono culture grains and cereals to get more profit out of the animal
So if you are vegan you cannot just wipe your hands of this problem because you're still contributing by eating these mono crops - What we really need from consumers is for them to care how their plants and animals are raised and not accept glyphosate or other weed killers in their supply chains
Animals should be pasture raised from a moral point of view but also a health and climate point of view
The US may believe the US gets no benefit from defending Ukraine or Europe, but that belief is false.
Even with greedy short-term thinking: The economic connections between the US and Europe are a big part of US wealth, and failing to protect your market and your investors is bad for business.
Ukraine… Europe supports Ukraine to keep Europe safe. Ukraine is not in NATO, nor is it covered by the EU treaty's mutual defence article.
Now as an adult I'd be worried about cycling around with cars that would hit me in the chest and not the legs on impact
Also cars make it very easy for a stranger to pull up and kidnap, parents subconsciously know that and factor it into their decisions
There was also youth clubs where I grew up and a BMX track and no phones so play was mostly happening outside
Society is going to continue to degrading as long as debts keep increasing
Debts will keep increasing because the only way to create new money is everytime someone gets a loan the bank injects the principle into the economy but then expects interest on top so there will never be enough money in the economy for everyone to pay off all their debts
We'll either get mass debt forgiveness or societal collapse and so far we've opted for societal collapse
Ok I actually agree with you about debt and the general societal degradation, but kidnapping is a non-issue.
In modern times there's a total of about 70 child kidnappings per year in the US. I am excluding parental kidnappings which sends that up by orders of magnitude, but I think that's fair because that's an entirely different issue and you specifically said stranger anyhow (though even of those 70 - a sizable chunk are not strangers). For contrast about 400 people are struck by lightning each year.
Statistically, it just doesn't happen. It's just one of those things, like terrorism or mass shootings, that is so unbelievably terrifying that people overreact in a self destructive way to try to prevent something that is statistically much less of a threat than just normal behaviors we take for granted.
I don't think money is the key issue. There were no clubs or nice tracks when I grew up, but ditches, canals, and forested areas worked just as well.
When people try to downplay rates by comparing to another very rare event, I respond by saying “I don’t want to go outside during a thunderstorm” rather than “you don’t need to risk it cus it’s so rare”.
Most Americans are feeling the same way and you must understand this to understand why Cheeto in chief keeps winning.
What is included in the stats for kidnapping? Where I live a confused young man convinced a little girl to get on his ebike and forced her to ride along with him for a few hours before coming back to the neighbourhood and being stopped by police that was out in full force for him.
My point being, “only 70 a year in the US” sounds like a very low number and inconsequential number since we had an abduction close by already.
Any parent that has heard the same story is thinking of that instead of the stats.
It is true that people have wildly incorrect understanding of crime rates and that this causes them to make strange decisions both in their personal lives and in the policies they support.
Child abductions are amazingly rare. Data for them is strong because they are consistently reported.
Cars and building for car infrastructure is part of it. Another part, I think, is the decline in neighborhood communities. By that I mean the social pressure to get to know/socialize with your neighbors, through everything from block parties to shared church membership. When kids go “wandering the neighborhood” they were never far from one of the member’s houses, or at least a familiar neighbor who would notice them and keep an eye out.
Which also goes back to car infrastructure. If you need to drive everywhere for any and all errands/activities, you won’t interact with people in nearby houses, you wont see neighbors at the local bar or small grocery store.
So many of the issues in the US stem from an isolating car (instead of people) oriented infrastructure. Everything from social breakdown, obesity, aggressive brodozers, insane utility and insurance expenses - the list goes on.
That is a fast track from cars to societal collapse. But agree cars are terrifying. I live in what should be a walking friendly part of Boston that is very pedestrian unfriendly because drivers are overly aggressive, on their phones, or commuting through to avoid traffic and do not care. It is the only reason our 10 year old is not yet wandering around on his own. I have spent years writing local politicians about improved intersections and traffic enforcement and have given up. No one seems to care. The car is king in the US. Even in a corner of the country where there is a lot of room to design around them not for them.
Based on the census, cars were NOT just as plentiful. The number of cars per household has risen slightly[1] (although they stop keeping track after 3 cars), but the number of households have doubled[2] between 1970 and 2020.
As for the bikes, it's a vicious cycle compounded by distracted driving via cell phone. Less bikes means less drivers expecting to see a bike, making it more dangerous for bikes, meaning less bikes.
sure, population has grown, but unless density has increased substantially, then on any given ride you're likely to encounter similar number of vehicles than before, not counting major / commute roads of course, but those aren't the ones kids are riding on
also, bike lanes were virtually non-existent back then
That's not the density I was referring to. That doesn't measure city/suburb density. We have many more suburbs (therefore more density overall) but the number of houses within a suburb (where a child might be riding around) is not likely to have increased.
I think we have a disagreement in terms beyond "density". I'm talking about bicycle as transportation, and I believe you may be talking about bicycle as recreation.
To clarify, transportation is a means to get you to a destination. I don't know where you live, but I haven't lived in or ever even seen a suburb that provides all the destinations that a child (assuming they're old enough to ride a bike alone) would want to bike to.
Friends live in different neighborhoods. The mall certainly wasn't in my neighborhood. The video store, my church, the woods, the local pool, the public library, all required crossing streets which have become busier and busier.
The size of the United States has not increased since 1970, but the number of people has. So yes, no shit, (US pop / US land area) has gone up. But the question is, "is the average neighborhood more dense than it was in 1970", and that's not a question you can answer from that number, because obviously cities & towns have spread since then.
If you want an intellectually honest comparison, take a look at the District of Columbia, which is basically 100% city and has been for many decades. It's gone down since 1970.
The other commenter and I were talking about cars.
Car ownership rates increased slightly, number of households nearly doubled, and average population density went up in every state except DC. There are more cars. Cars do not stay in one place, especially in the case of suburbanization.
Also, I'm not sure why/how the DC piece is intellectually honest. The Washington Metropolitan Statistical area has more than doubled in population since 1970[1]. Do you think all of the people who moved to PG County stay out of DC? That must be why the beltway is so easy to maneuver!
> unless density has increased substantially, then on any given ride you're likely to encounter similar number of vehicles than before, not counting major / commute roads of course, but those aren't the ones kids are riding on
This was the original mention of density. Sure, cars don't stay in one place, but if we're talking about kids walking/biking around their suburban neighborhood, how big is the impact if there's a new 50k suburb on the other side of the urban core? Even commuters from the exurbs are taking the dastardly 45mph stroads, not the stopsign-laden 25mph streets through your neighborhood.
The common parlance around here is that "greater density" means smaller houses closer together or multi-unit structures. If you build a new subdivision outside town, nobody says "oh wow the town got so much denser", it just got broader. Waving at "57.5 average people/square mile in 1970, growing to 93.8 in 2020" says absolutely nothing about the experience of the average person on the average streets near their homes.
As an average person, I've observed that both my childhood and current neighborhoods (Mid-Atlantic and Midwest respectively) have increased in the number of cars present, and that's within and between neighborhoods. I have also observed more in-fill subdivisions between neighborhoods. Since the '90s, I've seen just the bike ride that I'd take multiple times a week in my Mid-Atlantic suburb yield one acre lots turned into 8 homes, a small office park being converted into multiple 5-over-1s, a country club being turned into 400 homes. In the past decade in the Midwest, I've seen 2 single family homes torn down to make 8 units with an 8 car garage and 8 more spaces out back, multiple small businesses torn down to make way for "luxury" student housing with a parking spot for every bed room, a shopping center and apartment complex torn down and turned into an even bigger apartment complex with parking for every bedroom. Many of these are on my block or on the bike path around town.
There are more cars. There is more density.
So there you go, I've provided census data, I've provided observations from my own life across multiple geographies that backs up the data.
If you're claiming that there aren't more cars in neighborhoods, please back up that claim.
It's not just how many cars there are, but how big they are, how aggressively they're driven, and how much infrastructure there is for bikes alongside.
The track that the US political economy is on with the feedback loop caused by government backed fixed term fixed interest loans requires an ever increasing LTV, meaning newer entrants in the housing market will have to accept increasingly precarious positions.
The 30 year fixed mortgage is an insanely good deal, and I say this as a guy who has one. The monthly cost can only stay the same (and decline due to inflation) or decline if interest rates fall and you refinance or adjust the loan. If interest rates go up, you're completely protected.
A mortgage may be more than rent for a similar place now, but I suspect it won't be that many years before the lines cross.
Plenty of ways to define complex data shapes in Clojure
Spec is definitely underrated here considering it's built into the language and has a wider scope but for most people they want the intellisense experience which you can get with clj-kondo + mailli but is not built in so most teams don't use it, fair enough
I'd like to move the goal posts though and say I want flowstorm in every (any other?!) language
I can just run the program and scrub backwards and forwards through the execution and look at all the immutable values frame by frame with a high level UI with plenty of search/autocomplete options
For program understanding there's nothing better
The fact I can program against the timeline of values of my program and create custom UI on top is crazy
One of the most mind blowing demos to me was Bret Victor's inventing on principle and having a programmable reverse debugger for your language makes those demos viable
I built an emulator recently for work that replays what happens on live locally, combined with flowstorm I can go line by line and tell you exactly what happened and why, no print statements no reruns with my own custom UI customised to our apps interesting parts
This is my appeal to anyone outside of Clojure please build flowstorm for JavaScript and or Python
The design of flowstorm is definitely helped by the fact that 95% of Clojure programs are immutable but I don't think it's impossible to replicate just very difficult
As a Python programmer at day job, that is Clojure-curious and sadly only gets to use it for personal projects, and is currently threatened by an obnoxious TypeScript take over, I feel this.
const + Object.freeze is a lot to remember and cumbersome to use throughout a codebase, very relevant to Carmack's wish for immutability by default. I'm grateful Rust opted for that default.
Fair enough about const and let, the obnoxiousness for me is a combination of the language ergonomics, language ecosystem, but mostly the techno-political decision making behind it.
Rust taught me that a language does not have to be purely functional to have everything be an expression, and ever since I first used Rust years ago I've been wishing every other language worked that way. It's such a nice way to avoid or limit the scope of mutations
You are not a Clojure programmer. You use Clojure to solve problems in a professional context. I'm sorry that there's a political tribal war based on language going on at your workplace.
But especially now that coding agents are radically enabling gains in developer productivity, you don't need to feel excluded by the artificial tribal boundaries.
I remember that post and essentially agree with everything in it and your points too.
However there's a real-world factor that I don't think it covers, which is that having ten years of experience in the ecosystem for any language almost guarantees that you're going to be faster, more efficient, more idiomatic, and generally more comfortable through familiarity with that language and its ecosystem than with any other 'drop in replacement'. And you'll also probably be more aware of what doesn't work, which is just as useful. You can always tell when someone knows their tools well when they can immediately tell you what sucks about them, and possibly even the history of it and why it might happen to make sense, even if seems bad.
This isn't an argument for favouring speed or efficiency, just an ackowledgement of what is lost when you choose or are forced to move to a different environment.
Languages are a lot more than just syntax. Language-specific features, conventions and common idioms, language implementation details that end up being valuable to understand, familiarity with core library, familiarity with third party libaries (including the ones that are so well-known as to almost be considered core), package management, documentation standards, related tooling, foreign-function interfaces and related tools to make that workable, release concerns. The list goes on.
There's no tribal boundary here, just a belief that time spent with a given tool and all its idiosyncrancies (and programming languages are their idosyncracies, otherwise they wouldn't be different) is valuable and not something to pass up, even if I agree with the thesis of the article.
Can you bootstrap your way to a passable, possibly even idiomatic, solution with coding agents? Yes. Does that mean you've managed to short circuit the results of long-term experience? I'm not so sure. Does it matter? Depends on the person or environment, I guess.
I don't think the learning curve for a new tool is a straight line (I imagine more logarithmic), so it's not that you'd need the same amount of exposure in terms of time, but that does imply the cost of changing is up-front.
There's also a difference between choosing to investigate a new language out of your own interest and having the time to do it properly, versus having some top-down mandate that you must now use <X>, meanwhile still having to meet the same deadlines as before.
So use Clojure Spec or better yet Malli to parse your input data at the edges of your program
Makes sense, I think a lot of developers would want to complect this problem with their runtime type system of choice without considering the set of downsides for the users
Yes these numbers are peanuts compared to the Rothschilds and Saudis of the world. But the question was about self-made billionaires, which I believe everyone on that list is.
The issue here is the industrialisation of the land and the shortcuts that farmers are doing that essentially kill the land, animals and plants in a way that is unmaintainable
The way this should work is animals should be herded on to land to eat and poo, once the grasses are nearly eaten the animals should be rotated on to other fields, the new grass regrows in this fresh environment because it has no competitor and plenty of fertiliser this process kills weeds and rejuvenates soil ready for planting
This mimics the nomadic lives that early humans would have led, following their herds of animals to fresh new pastures
Then the farmers worked out they didn't need animals to do this process they could just plow their fields and then that gets rid of the weeds, not quite as good as animals doing it in terms of soil health but effective and quick
Then the farmers were sold weed killers which meant they didn't need to plow their field, they just needed to buy GMO glyphosate resistant seeds and flood their fields with glyphosate, some types of crops are even killed close to harvest with glyphosate so it'll be in your food at high rates for certain crops
The problem with this approach is glyphosate is assumed safe because its mechanism for killing weeds is based on a system we don't directly have as humans, but our gut bacteria do, it also competes with glycine in our bodies used to create proteins, I wouldn't want to drink glyphosate from the bottle but it's being added to my food so effectively I do that
It also degrades the soil quality into dust, instead of being full of earth worms which would normally feed the birds, the local wildlife etc
So these mono culture fields are just turning huge swathe of land into sterile dust bowls that exacerbate climate change
Then these crops are either sold directly to me as a plant eater or given to the animals to make them bulk up and sick
As someone who eats a lot of meat I want my animals to be grass fed (or their natural diet) I don't want them to have to take antibiotics because the farmer needed to bulk them up with cheap glyphosate laced mono culture grains and cereals to get more profit out of the animal
So if you are vegan you cannot just wipe your hands of this problem because you're still contributing by eating these mono crops - What we really need from consumers is for them to care how their plants and animals are raised and not accept glyphosate or other weed killers in their supply chains
Animals should be pasture raised from a moral point of view but also a health and climate point of view