I didn't look closely at the project, but why take the extra step of base64? I do this all the time with tar by itself and it's wire-proof enough to work fine.
I spend noticeably less time on youtube than I used to because they keep shoving shorts in my face. I'm a premium subscriber, I click "fewer shorts," nothing changes. Maybe I should be thankful?
Turn off all the history options, and bookmark https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions , which shows you only what you're subscribed to, in reverse-chronological order. (It'll still show you shorts, but only those for channels you're subscribed to.)
I recently quit YT premium after decades of having it, and now I actually (weirdly) feel good when I see ads bc it's a reminder that I'm not giving Googletube 20$/month
Substitute hover chairs for automobiles and we're already living in it. As a walker and cyclist in your average midsize US city, I often feel like the scene where WALL-E is pursuing EVE through the spaceship narrowly escaping collision.
I personally know of one ongoing effort whose founders think it's very much still viable. Well done uncovering and acting on it back in the day, Ron. Too bad about the outcome. I'm grateful you spent the time to write these stories. Thank you as well for being a public champion of lisp, for which I owe a great deal of my own undeserved success.
I think he wrote that he didn't make anything from that. He held onto the equity because he (unfortunately) thought Virgin would turn it into a success.
> For over a decade, my dopamine (from work) came from a very predictable place: shipping new things. As a manager, those direct rewards will simply disappear, leaving you feeling unfulfilled for weeks (months in my case).
Your job as a manager is still to ship things -- only now it's to ship more than you ever could alone. You get the privilege and responsibility to steward the skills of two or more engineers and shape the entire part of a business. The dopamine is harder won and often more rewarding. Management is difficult and exhausting but it's anything but unfulfilling. Let's not start new managers off telling them what they can't do but what they can do.
Ironically, as a manager of software engineers you should still be very engaged with the team's code. How else will you understand your capacity and understand what gaps you need to fill? Run the test suite, review designs, read PRs, ask questions, give praise for attention to detail. You will keep the bar high on the team and advocate for their work more effectively within the organization.
It's long, but well worth an hour of your time. He even states in the comments that he set out two years ago to make a positive video about AVs:
What was most surprising to me was that when I began researching this video (two years ago!) it was going to be about some of the technical challenges that would need to be overcome in order to make self-driving cars a reality, but the conclusion was going to be that ultimately, AVs would be a good thing.
By the time I was done researching this topic I was absolutely horrified of our future self-driving dystopia.
The future he illustrates seems mostly plausible, except that it depends on all of the technology functioning flawlessly. I have a hard time believing that streets full of high-speed AVs functioning in perfect synchrony is likely.
However, that doesn't change my general agreement with the conclusions he draws in that video and the rest of his channel.
lisp's syntax is simple - its just parenthesis to define a list, first element of a list is executed as a function.
but for example a language like C has many different syntaxes for different operations, like function declaration or variable or array syntax, or if/switch-case etc etc.
so to know C syntax you need to learn all these different ways to do different things, but in lisp you just need to know how to match parenthesis.
But of course you still want to declare variables, or have if/else and switch case. So you instead need to learn the builtin macros (what GP means by semantics) and their "syntax" that is technically not part of the language's syntax but actually is since you still need all those operations enough that they are included in the standard library and defining your own is frowned upon.
Lisp has way more syntax, that doesn't cover any of the special forms. Knowing about application syntax doesn't help with understanding `let` syntax. Even worse, with macros, the amount of syntax is open-ended. That they all come in the form of S-expressions doesn't help a lot in learning them.
Most languages' abstract machines expose a very simple API, it's up to the language to add useful constructs to help us write code more efficiently. Languages like Lisp start with a very simple syntax, then add those constructs with the language itself (even though those can be fixed using a standard), others just add it through the syntax. These constructs plus the abstract machine's operations form the semantics, syntax is however the language designer decided to present them.
I was about to give up on a career in software development when I found Clojure in 2007.
Rich, I'll always be grateful to you for creating a language and community that got to the root of so many problems our industry still faces today. I'm confident it will continue to change the world as it has my own life.
