> I still can't figure out quite what motivates these "AI evangelist" types

I'd hazard a guess and say "money"

> It’s beautiful, I love it.

When computers become disposable, their programmers soon become disposable as well. Maybe, you shouldn't love it.

That doesn't make sense.

What, sugars and gum, but no sandwich wrappers?

In the release 1.12 they finally implemented the ability to create compact executables, so I would say the answer to your question is "yes".

If the USA and Europe decide to got this way, they will be (as in many other ways today) followers, rather than the leaders. China already does large-scale net censorship.

Exactly, what this article is arguing for is essentially just the Chinese model of the Internet. The outside is largely inaccessible and the inside is tightly controlled by having political oversight over the large platforms.

No doubt this is effective at achieving the political goal it aims to achieve.

The belief that it is useful.

Words "Python" and "fast" do not belong in the same sentence.

Yeah, when I see these kinds of headlines about Python, I'm always left wondering what they mean by "fast". In this case, "fast" means "still slower than Python usually is".

python is fast because computers are fast, but yea compared to rust it isn't, and in a lot of cases it doesn't have to be

It doesn't, it hurts you by limiting the number of platforms Git is available on.

If it works on mac & linux I've got nothing to worry about

Fast Fourier transform was not invented by Cooley-Tukey, it was used by Gauss to compute trigonometric interpolation of orbits from observations.

The factorization trick was reinvented several times. The algorithm that uses it to do a frequency decomposition was presented just once by named authors. This happens all the time. Freaking out about naming and attribution isn't really very informative.

Edit: as always, Wikipedia is a better source than comment pedantry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Fourier_transform#History

The wikipedia article you reference confirms my point:

"Gauss wanted to interpolate the orbits from sample observations; his method was very similar to the one that would be published in 1965 by James Cooley and John Tukey, who are generally credited for the invention of the modern generic FFT algorithm."

> Freaking out about naming and attribution isn't really very informative.

It matters who gets the credit for an original idea. Cooley and Tukey are lionized as pioneers, but they are not.

You’re pulling a quote that disproves your point.

There must be something wrong with your reading skills, because it's literally the same point slightly rephrased.

True. Before Fourier did Fourier.

How about: because it's overhyped, but ultimately useless stock bubble prop?

Shhhhhh! Are you saying that not every app or platform needs to have AI shoehorned in for the purposes of appealing to non-technical funders who are lured by any buzzword?