I think you mean: it is one of the most brain dead comments you have ever hurd about Linux.
In fairness, the cost of selling their souls to the Dark Lord Sauron also does not show up in this graphic.
Cent O-S is com-ING, to TOWN!!!
Also, I respect your insistence on using a term other than American to describe people from the US.
Because no one else belongs to a state and so calling ourselves "statesians" is therefore better?
As someone who regularly has to deal with code that has been broken needlessly into smaller functions so that I have to constantly jump around to figure out what is going on, this really resonates with me.
The latest case was someone who took something that really only needed to be a single function and instead turned it into a class with a dozen tiny methods.
And thank god for that!
Yes, exactly, which as we all know stands for GIF Image Format.
Best of all, they would not have to work for Bezos anymore.
(I tried staying a subscriber to support the genuinely good investigative journalism they do, but Bezos's changes to it were got to be too much for me to swallow; what finally drove me over was the incredibly congratulatory editorial that the editorial board posted in response to the kidnapping of Maduro from Venezuela.)
So what would you name the category that includes Alpine Linux and Chimera Linux, as was brought up in the article?
I was responding to the following paragraph in the article:
We used to get proof-of-thought for free because producing a patch took real effort. Now that writing code is cheap, verification becomes the real proof-of-work. I mean proof of work in the original sense: effort that leaves a trail: careful reviews, assumption checks, simulations, stress tests, design notes, postmortems. That trail is hard to fake. [emphasis mine] In a world where AI says anything with confidence and the tone never changes, skepticism becomes the scarce resource.
I am a bit wary that the trail of verification will continue to be so "hard to fake".
Unfortunately, the next step is for AI to get better and better at generating verification trails that look correct but are not.
It is worth noting that the more fundamental thing going on here is that abstract syntax trees are the general way in which programs are represented after being parsed, rather than this being something specific to Lisp. What makes Lisp interesting is essentially that it uses a notation that makes the underlying AST incredibly explicit.