My (often incorrect) views and opinions are my own and not those of anyone I currently or have ever worked for. Please help me make them more informed (and hopefully more correct) whenever you can!
Legitimate question, in the early days was this a large distinction? Specifically, my understanding was that the earliest raids where this distinction is most accurate, they didn't actually change the local societies much. Mostly were raids for resources and did not stay.
That is, until the Islamic raids started, the indigenous groups took losses, but were not nearly as transformed. Is that not accurate?
If it helps, https://taeric.github.io/CodeAsData.html was my attempt at exploring "code as data" and what makes lisp different here. My specific focus was more to point out that "eval" in lisp doesn't just take in a string. But I think the same general points remain.
I do think it is worth highlighting how many advanced parts of hot-reloading have already been covered in Common Lisp. Same with highlighting how the REPL is largely not used to directly type into, but is instead a very powerful interface for tools to interact with a running image.
But, again agreed that simply these existing are not that notable today.
To be fair, this is no different than any other thing people might want to do more of. Increasing the amount you can bench press, cycle, run, read, write, cook, whatever. Most will allow you to progress at something that most people don't care about. Nor, necessarily, should they.
By far, the best thing to learn when learning to progress at something, is learning to be satisfied with your own progression.
Largely fair. This is one where the specific goals, I think, work against people. I know most coaches will attach "attainable" to goals, to combat that.
To that end, if your goal is just to read more, there is no reason to worry about how substantial your books are. However, if you goal is to read more substantially, you should start by aiming a bit higher than where you are. Achieve that, then adjust target.
Progress, then, can come either in more volume of reading where you are; or in more substantive reading. Either are valid, to me.
To take this to the exercise. If your goal is to do a fast mile, agreed that just walking the dog is unlikely to help. If your goal is to be physically active, simple walks punch well above what people think they do.
To add to this, it isn't "doing it bad" if you aren't out there reading deep texts. Just as it isn't "doing it badly" if you can't run a 4 minute mile.
As you say, you get better at what you are doing. If you want to get faster, at anything, you don't really have the option of skipping the slow phase.
Right, but you are just relying on a different form of random, there. The whole point of making controls and then building experiments on changing them, is to get more power from fewer observations. No?
Again, it is off to think that one is automatically superior to the other. Certainly to the exclusion of the other. And that is what feels off with the framing of the parent post. I am perfectly fine saying you should use both observational and controlled trials. But I think it is also wrong to think you don't have to build experiments to test interventions.
This is why you put metrics in your service code. So that you can observe them behave and look for things to change. This is also why you do test cases on your code, so that you can specifically target your change.
Now, I fully back the idea that just A/B testing something doesn't automatically mean you learn something true. But neither does observing a strong outcome on uncontrolled data.
This feels off. In medicine, any evidence can also be blinded by confounding factors that are far easier to miss without adding specific controls. Really, in any field this will be the case.
Should we demand an RCT before we accept evidence? Of course not. At some point you do have to make a choice on things.
And it should be noted that most drugs do have early cutoff criteria if the evidence is strong enough that it is working. It isn't like people are wanting to withhold good treatments from the world. Adding controls and randomizing them, though, has proven to be highly effective at helping progress.
Everything that grows does this, to an extent? Consider software that gets more development effort. If it is getting more updates, it is likely getting "stronger" than that which is not getting updates.
Now, you can also argue that software is likely to get vulnerabilities if it grows too fast. But, that is also true for living things. Trees that grow too fast for their roots fall. Animal populations that grow too heavily will destroy their food sources and become more vulnerable to plenty of problems.
Thanks! And yeah, I knew a few markets were tanking. I was hoping there was evidence that people were starting to offer SRO style places.
Alas, I think there is such a heavy anti-landlord attitude around that nobody wants to be said landlord. Worse, towns don't like having apartment complexes. Worse still, we don't do anything to incentivize moving back to these neighborhoods for the people that do move away to work.
Right, I should have been clear that my assertion was not that there is lack of demand. My assertion is we don't build and offer this style. Outside of school dormitories. And even then, there is still a preference for bigger.
Would love to see more on the correction you are referencing. So much of the discourse I see focusing on "starter homes." Which, these are not that.
The stats on "living paycheck to paycheck" are notoriously rough. With some people that make 300k a year claiming they fit that category.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your given scenario. I actually lost my car when I was younger. Was a rough few months while I got used to commuting without one. And I was lucky to have a roommate that kept my cost of living down.
And I remain a proponent of increasing pay to service providers. As well as finding ways to provide cheaper living conditions. First time home buyer programs are great, but seem unlikely to be relevant for the workers we are talking about? I see the median age of home care nurses in rural areas drifts up to 51-53. Which, granted, I see the median age of first time home buyer is drifting up. I don't think it is as high as those workers, though.
I do think there is a problem here. I just don't think it rises to "half the nation lives in abject poverty."
I would fully get behind us paying service providers far more than we do. To wit, it baffles me when people are upset about how much we allocate to pay for services that go to older people, but then we don't do any effort to make sure the services are provided by younger people. Indeed, we seem to go out of our way to make sure the people providing these services are, themselves, low income. It is baffling.
But even this feels like it is overstating things. You say folks are one car repair away from being homeless. And there is a lot of polling that shows people would struggle to pay for repairs. But full on homelessness? I can only assume that you are describing towns/cities that offer no transport assistance at all, that lands people into being so dependent on a car. I believe it, but I struggle to think this is literally half the nation.
I'm going to go on a limb and say half of the US is not living in abject poverty? Nor can I get behind the idea that quality of life for folks is on the down trend.