This is probably more of a managerial thing than anything else — after all, most men's performance undergoes constant evaluation. Certainly in the workplace, and often in personal relationships as well. If they fail, they don't get as much to eat and are typically deserted

And such evaluations are biased against praise, except for a deified few. For example, successful musicians frequently mention that record labels make them feel like underachievers, even when they top the charts

Many say it works because liberals now represent the professional-managerial class, who often come across to workers/poor as infuriatingly patronizing, slick and humiliating. Whereas many don't know who owns their big corporation, so they don't inspire such visceral feelings.

While some may argue that liberals aren't leftists (but are rather good-cop), nevertheless many leftists do this too. The dynamics are explained in Thomas Frank's book "Listen, Liberal", David Graeber's essay "Army of Altruists: On the alienated right to do good", and Participatory Economics's coverage of the coordinator class.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/the-rise-of-professional-jo...

The fascism was always in the vast majority of us, if we wanted to look at it. Just look at the structure of our workplaces, which accounts for half our waking lives. There's no free speech in them. With few exceptions, they're intensely hierarchical, people passing orders downward. Those "unlucky" enough to make it inside one of them, often sleep in the nearby alley.

The bizarreness of this form of organization isn't lost on those on top of the hierarchy. They're used to battalions of people doing what they want, and they seek out philosophers who apply this vision to other aspects of life. It wasn't hard; for example, the US had a 4 year king anyway. Usually a warmonger callous to the vast majority of his population.

One problem is "calling out." Name-calling. The current administration is showing direct action, which impresses many who find their lives increasingly intolerable. Many didn't like him, but rather rationally rolled the dice with the change candidate, even if it was probably going to end up as bad change. Like hitting the computer.

Many point it's from the professional/managerial/bureaucratic class, which never was into free speech to begin with. Take pg's mention of the Soviet Union. That's actually a country where that class overthrew the capitalists to become the ruling class. (They were called "The New Class" there. In countries like the US, they're above workers but subordinate to capitalists.)

And all this is a useful distraction: criticizing wokies distracts from the structure of power that leads to homelessness and working your one (1) life away under some boss. Which is ridiculous in the 21st century.

Obviously, some parts of took a while to figure out. For example, I needed to figure out an AWS security group problem with Ingress objects, that I recall wasn't well-documented. So I think parts of that declarative language can suck, if the declarative parts aren't well factored-out from the imperative parts. Or if the log messages don't help you diagnose errors, or if there isn't some kind of (dynamic?) linter that helps you notice problems quickly

In your team's case, more information seems needed to help us evaluate the problems. Why was it easier before to make testing environments, and harder now?

For example, type declarations can enable performance optimizations, compiletime type checking, runtime type checking, IDE autocompletion, etc. Or they can be ignored, if compiler simplicity is more valued. All these things have engineering tradeoffs. For example, runtime checks may have runtime costs at odds with performance optimization

There might be higher-value improvements to Common Lisp, if higher quality code is desired

If the iPad could run MacOS, I'd search for a lightweight stand (like Roost or Nexstand K1), and use my own keyboard. Closer to ultralight computing. For a 2nd monitor, I'd use another iPad with Sidecar.