That will indubitably be the end result of all this.

reminds me of this gem https://elpidio.org/2018/02/12/citigroups-plutonomy-memo-there-are-rich-consumers-and-there-are-the-rest/

The current right wing government will implode eventually, and communism being incubated in Kerala will be very valuable when that happens.

The drones don’t even have the range to go from Russia to Romania last I looked.

Again, it’s very weird to single out one type of control character. You have to compare syntax trade offs holistically. However, even when you straight up compare parens, there isn’t a significant difference. Pretty much every language, except those using whitespace, will have two parens for arguments and curlies for the function body, or a statement. This is roughly the same number of parens you end up with in Clojure, minus all the other characters. The difference is just not that dramatic in practice.

It’s incredible to see how Europeans are looking at what happened to Ukraine and thinking yeah we want some of that at home too.

You said that “Lisp” is actually a family of languages, that Clojure uses fewer parens than other Lisps (I object: still more than non-Lisps), that there are macros for infix expression syntax (I object: non-standard/3rd-party solutions that only help with operators), that parens don’t even matter because of structural editing tools (I object: irrelevant, the discussion was about the number of parens, not whether they “matter”).

Clojure, uses different types of syntax to denote different types types of data structures, and thus different types of operations, such as statement declaration. I even gave you examples showing that you get the exact same amount of visual information as you do in other languages.

Meanwhile, you object to the very nature of how Lisp works. The whole point Lisps is that you allow the user to easily create whatever semantics they want using macros. This is something that’s not possible to do in most languages. If you want some new semantics or syntax you have to wait for the language committee to agree on that.

The big advantage here is that the core language can stay small and focused without having to grow over time. This is what you see happening in practically all mainstream languages. Usage patterns change, applications of the language change, and as a result new syntax continues being bolted on which makes the language ever bigger and harder to learn.

On the other hand, with Lisp approach, you have a small language that’s simple and consistent while libraries express different semantics that happen to be needed at the time. As a user you only have to learn the semantics of the libraries used in the project you’re working on. As different patterns fall out of use, they don’t accrete within the core language. New users don’t need to know about random quirks that were popular a decade ago.

Your second objection is also nonsensical because these is how the language used in practice. Pretty much nobody would write code without syntax highlighting, and similarly you wouldn’t use s-expressions based language without structural editing. This is a made up argument that’s a complete non sequitur. I’ve even showed you sweet expression alternative syntax that exists and literally nobody uses. If your argument had any merit to it, then that’s what Lispers would use.

I also disagree with “the total number of parens in your examples is about the same”. This is a micro-example, so when the original Lisp (Clojure) code has 4 pairs of parens and the C-style (JavaScript, Perl) version has 2, that’s twice the parentheses to me, not “about the same”.

const hypot = (x, y) => Math.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2);

4 parens, 1 ,,1 =, 1 ;, 1 =>, 1 =

(defn hypot [x y]  (infix sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2)))

6 parens, 1 [

Clojure version is more consistent with less noise. Ignoring all the other noise you have to add is frankly intellectually dishonest. Whether it’s a paren or a comma, or a semicolon, an arrow or an equals sign, it’s still syntax. Clojure version has less syntax. That’s literally less stuff I need to parse visually and worry about when writing code.

Let’s take a look at your JavaScript version more closely, and it immediately becomes obvious that you’re not actually saving anything here. You just end up sprinkling more types of control characters in it:

9 {, 15 (, 12 = (for assignment), 16 ; 3 ,, 1 ?, :`

That’s about a factor of 3. Now, you can argue that I shouldn’t care about the parentheses, but my point is simply that they’re there and you can’t really avoid them if you write in anything resembling idiomatic Lisp.

Yeah if you just ignore all the other control characters you had to add instead then you sure saved on parens. Bravo!

Your whole argument is basically treating parens as something different from other syntax characters, which is a nonsensical argument. If you’re going to compare syntax then you have to compare all the syntax you have. The only type of syntax that will give you significant reduction would be white space based syntax as seen in Python or Haskell, but that adds its own problems hence why most languages avoid it.

Right, I think the key part to keep in mind is that color revolutions do tend to have an organic component to them. You have to have existing discontent or tensions that are exploited. The trick is to direct the discontent towards political goals that favor the west. This is done through NGOs, western media, grooming young people, and so on.

As you point out, a spontaneous uprising isn’t going to have the necessary structures to create a functioning and independent government. When the dust settles, the existing power structures will reassert themselves, but under new leadership, one that’s likely to be favorable to the west.

this has been such a transparent regime change operation

welcome to the resitance

Try to keep up.

• China’s carbon emissions have been in a structural decline since 2023 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year
• Clean energy was top driver of China’s economic growth in 2023 https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-was-top-driver-of-chinas-economic-growth-in-2023/
• China installed more solar in 2025 than rest of the world combined https://electrek.co/2025/09/02/h1-2025-china-installs-more-solar-than-rest-of-the-world-combined/
• China’s solar capacity surges; predicted to top 1 TW by 2026 https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/china-s-solar-capacity-surges-expected-to-top-1-tw-by-2026
• China is also building out nuclear at a breakneck pace https://www.economist.com/china/2023/11/30/china-is-building-nuclear-reactors-faster-than-any-other-country
• New energy vehicles account for 77.6% of China’s public transport system https://www.shine.cn/news/nation/2403089981/

Finally, it’s also worth noting that China has a concrete plan for becoming carbon neutral, and short term coal usage has been found to be in line with China’s climate pledges

• https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chinas-energy-transition-in-5-charts/
• https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds

Exactly, inflation tracks the rate of change in prices and it cumulative. The real question is whether salaries are keeping up with the increase in cost of living or not.

^ how to say you’ve had the misfortune to be educated in burgerland and were never taught geography

but muh overproduction!

you keep on clutching them pearls

I find the whole thing with task estimation is largely masturbative. The reality is that the only thing you have to decide is whether the task is worth doing or not. If it is, then it needs to be done correctly, and that means it’ll take as long as it takes to finish. You can’t just cut corners on a feature for the sake of a timeline. Realistically, deciding on what tasks are a priority should be the main focus of planning. You pick the tasks that are most urgent, and then you work on them till they’re done.

Furthermore, there are broadly two types of tasks. First, is something you’ve done before using the same tools. For that sort of task you can give a relatively accurate estimate. However, any task where you’re doing something new, or using a different tool such as a new framework, library, etc., then all best are off. Even if the task is simple conceptually, it can take a long time because there will be some weird quirk in the libraries, or how they interface together, or a million other things that can go wrong. Best you can do here is to do a research spike that’s time boxed to get a feel for how long the task will take.

The problem is that management gets really obsessive with trying to fit work into whatever timelines are pushed onto them from up top. So they end up forcing developers to commit to some arbitrary numbers that are largely pulled out of your ass, and then either projects run overtime or they’re delivered with lots of bugs because the timeline was completely unreasonable.

I’m honoring Charlie’s memory, it’s what he would’ve wanted.

The total number of parens in your examples is about the same, except you also have a bunch of noise like random semicolons sprinkled in. Meanwhile, nesting is a feature, not a bug because it provides you with additional visual information about relationships in code. The only people who incessantly bray about nested parens are the ones who’ve never actually worked with Lisp for any period of time. If this was a genuine problem with the syntax then stuff like sweet expressions would’ve taken off. The reality is, as I already explained and you’ve ignored, is that the editor manages the parens for you. When you work with Lisp, typing opening paren is equivalent to having a command sequence to say I’m starting a new expression.

no prob

Name a more iconic duo than liberals and pearl-clutching. I’ll wait.