Still.... the message has value.

The prose is self-consciously different, makes the reader work a little harder. One can almost feel a literary water ripple or pebble garden, stillness and simplicity.

Consider an analogy: the writer knows that a reader readily digests concepts in C++ and purposely pivots to something obscure like Pony. The reader says "this is inconvenient, I need to change my process to digest your work" and the author says "that's the point."

> No one claims that good type systems prevent buggy software. But, they do seem to improve programmer productivity.

They really don’t. How did you arrive at such a conclusion?

>You call it extortion of the AI companies, but isn’t stealing/crawling/hammering a site to scrape their content to resell just as nefarious?

You can easily block ChatGPT and most other AI scrapers if you want:

https://habeasdata.neocities.org/ai-bots

There are fundamental reasons public transit is always more efficient than private cars. There's no fundamental reason a really good search engine is more efficient than an LLM or any other kind of AI.

There's something odd in this argument. If you come at it from a Canadian perspective Canada seriously spent on neural network computer science when almost no one else did (many in AI considered the entire thing discredited and impossible), now the (financial) gains from that are almost entirely in a foreign country.

The US science establishment was all about buying and utilizing Russian rocket engines until he-that-shall-not-be-named came along. SpaceX took the breakthroughs that existed in the US in things like control theory, which the same science establishment had failed to value appropriately.

It doesn't look like the science establishments of any country are actually successfully feeding their innovation machines, or have done so for decades. Switching a non functioning system off does at least allow it to be replaced by something that risks doing things when something comes back.

Of course many pure scientists will, legitimately, argue that innovation isn't the point in the first place, and that is a far more solid point, but real academic diversity has been so destroyed by the global consensus making peer review process that much of their progress has effectively stalled.

> It is a lot less welcoming when DHH repeatedly uses his platform to say that I shouldn't exist or have equal rights.

Can you point to any of his blog posts that says this ?

Is he known to, like, reference his politics in his conference talks or something?

The linked article doesn't mention anything about skin color. Please don't stir hatred like that here.