It was fun while it lasted and I had a lot of fun working on it. But it was really not a good business fit. The programmatic macro system was supposed to allow us to build customer-facing DSLs on top of it, but everybody just wanted Python anyways.

I worked at a startup with massive NIH syndrome, once. We even used our own in-house programming language, because it was "better than anything else out there on the market." It did have a lot of nifty features that others don't have: a pretty novel type system, programmatic macros, a built-in build system and other fun bells and whistles -- but also not-so-fun ones like having no syntax highlighter, LSP, or debugger, and having to constantly shuffle around your code to avoid ICEs in the compiler.

The compiler wasn't the product, but we found ourselves fighting that thing more actively than any of the real problems our custom programming language was supposed to solve. The CTO found himself spending all his nights and weekends mostly trying to get the compiler to not explode.

A few years later, after I had long left (for that reason, among many) I heard they switched to Python. Can't imagine how long it took them to get that all rewritten.

I might just be having fun with models, but I have actually noticed their capabilities vary somewhat, and so my (perhaps vain) hope is that by using both, one can catch each the other's blindspots. It's still unclear to me if that's consistently happening, but I am making substantial progress in my personal and professional projects, so something seems to be working.

This is also a major blocker for auto-vectorization. Can't coalesce a load of a[i], a[i+1], a[i+2], a[i+3] into a load of a[i:i+3] if there's a possibility that `i+1`, `i+2` or `i+3` wrapped around (thus causing your "contiguous" load to be non-contiguous). This is a big reason why you shouldn't use `unsigned` for loop counters, especially if they're going to be used as an index into an address calculation.

But that's highly contingent on that thing being something people are willing to violate the law over, and on the convenience of that thing not being significantly impacted by prohibition. Neither of which are true for prediction betting (it's almost identical to sports betting in that regard, imo.) The only reason these markets proliferate is precisely because they are legal.

- mining the 95th percentile, leveraging the Pareto Principle

- optimizing and ubiquitizing under-optimized paradigms

- pioneering agentic solutions to aggressively expand product frontiers

- innovating high-risk strategies to serve underserved markets

- digging deep into the inner recesses of my being and extracting what's left of my soul through my nostrils

And so much more.

But I'm happy to conclude this exchange with your feeling satisfied on that point. I don't imagine you're interested in an actual debate on substance, given that your only argument is essentially that I'm ignorant, and I don't know what I'm talking about.

Thank you for lending your expertise in this matter.

Much can be said about the problem of government waste, and it certainly is a problem, but there's an underlying assumption in this kind of talk, which I'd like to attack. That assumption is: "people are poor because the government taxes them too much, and wastes their money". Republicans in the US run and win on this platform again and again.

The problem is that it's simply not true. Government wealth has been falling for decades[0] -- nations are increasingly rich, but governments are increasingly poor. I don't even need to include a source that shows effective tax rates have been falling for the same period (no surprise -- that's _why_ governments are so relatively poor). As nations have continued to get richer, most of that wealth has been concentrated in the hands of an increasingly small group of private individuals.

Governments are not sequestering your wealth -- rich people are.

[0]: https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-3/

The vast majority of people in America are already doing this, because their wealth is entirely derived from their income. Your complaint isn't relevant to the discussion of wealth vs income taxes.

To be clear, what I see as distinctly Christian is the idea that charity must be purely altruistic -- it's not seen as Christian to desire recognition for your charity, or to perform charitable acts with the hope of being rewarded with eternal salvation. They must be done purely out of duty to God, and love for others (which are essentially identical requirements, since "God is love").

But if there's ignorance behind that thought, I'm open to being educated.

Indeed. I've spent my professional career seeking out positions at companies of increasing prestige and technical renown, each with a higher reputation for professionalism and performance than the last. And yet this invariant has held in every position.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between each company has been the quality of the manager I was supposed to please, which I have noticed (perhaps predictably) is not strongly correlated with the company's reputation or success.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same dynamic is playing out with these AI slop podcasts.