It is a very weird unexpected artifact of Clojure being so focused on backwards compatibility. People finish excellent libraries and because they don't need to constantly update them because they still work perfectly ... the vanity metrics look bad and you have to reassure people that the project isn't dead, it's just finished.
It does a very good job at giving developers what they said they wanted, not having to do this constant annoying churn ... and it turns out a lot of people didn't actually want that, they like the churn and the feeling of productivity that merging dependabot PRs gives you.
> I'm explaining to you why Clojure won't reach mass adoption
I don't think you need to explain that, it's a conservative ecosystem for experienced devs, that was the target niche it was always aiming for. It's intentionally built to not reach that level of "mass adoption", mass-adopted, market dominating tools are one small subset of the set of useful software tools.
This is why it's a bad idea to evaluate software technologies entirely by what shows up in the social media hype cycle news. The only metric you learn from that is "what's the new fad that I can get attention by writing about because people are eager to form an opinion about this brand new thing".
Probably a much better idea to not choose a language at the "tons of posts about it" phase of the lifecycle. Pick something that enough people actually use that it is considered too boring to be the hot new thing.
It was a technical question about the predictive power of language models, the biases encoded in them and the results of their use in a large system like all of Google's connected products.
But I guess to your particular faith-based ideology the mention of race makes it a "social issue"? Anyway I'm sorry I misclassified you and in the process insulted your religious beliefs. That wasn't my intention.
The cognitive dissonance is that a huge number of highly respected people in the field, and coworkers, said "yeah, this was racist bullshit", and the actual paper in question has been seen by a lot of people by now.
But if you are committed to the stance that racism doesn't exist and this is all a grand SJW conspiracy then you have to grasp at straws to ignore the overwhelming number of experts disagreeing with you.
Some people have a stance they chose, that this is some Daily Mail "political correctness gone mad" thing, because SJW cultural domination controls all our lives. They're working through some cognitive dissonance.
Well, the non-pop philosophers will understand that as a minor hit to the model of consciousness as solely concerned with post-facto rationalization and basically removed from the real-time decision making loop. Those studies were never strong evidence anyway, the protocols were pretty weak as they required asking the subjects to self-report at what time they "decided" to act.
The real free will debate is about both the definition of free will (for the compatibilists and libertarians) and a debate about whether the evidence for materialism outweighs the subjective experience of free will.
But yes, this will hopefully stop those confused pop-philosophy stories.
It does a very good job at giving developers what they said they wanted, not having to do this constant annoying churn ... and it turns out a lot of people didn't actually want that, they like the churn and the feeling of productivity that merging dependabot PRs gives you.