no? this isn't what it argues at all. did you read it?

It's not widely known and mostly spun in MSM as fringe theory (thanks to marketing by big AI cos). this is a well written essay, and if it helps the discourse all the better.

Its also cheap, and fire retardant compared to other finishing. It used to be lathe+plaster. And before that plain wood.

China does it and it works well. We just need governments with executive planning capabilities. In my country (Canada) we only have myopic politicians who only care for re-election.

Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

false dichotomy.

so you can do the transformations (see the rlisp macro section)

Yes, but you could do the same by transforming Rust's ASTs. The only downside is that your input format is different from the format you are transforming. But the upside is that readability is much improved, which matters because code is typically read far more often than it is written.

26% means not ai 3/4 times...

If you don't have stakeholders I contend you probably don't have a product, or you're building the bare minimum MVP which upon becoming a product will be woefully inadequate, generating the aforementioned bottleneck.

I said "too many". And mostly meant people with a say, as in "design by executive board/committee" as opposite to someone or a small team with a vision. Not about not having users.

In any case, the point still stands: most companies absolutely can't code "faster than they can ship" and for that have huge backlogs of things they'd want to add or bugs to fix.

That's only true if you're making something that's already been done.

With the limited spectrum and regulations, there's not much room for stuff that hasn't been done. Having only 7k open jobs across the entire country seems to support that.