I’m a hobbyist, I don’t use common lisp professionally, but it has become my go-to tool for little personal projects and puzzles (like Project Euler or Advent of Code). The interactive development (mentioned in the article) is one of the primary reasons.

I find it so fun to build with. You can write functions and immediately test and interact with them in the repl, and then build on them from there. You can compile code at a granular level - for example you can recompile a function rather than the entire source file. This is helpful if some stuff is still being worked out and would produce compile time errors.

Occasionally I’ve gotten into a weird place because of the evolution of my code and incremental changes along the way while running a program. When I stop and completely reload a program, it behaves differently from what I previously experienced. It is something additional to keep in mind when interactively modifying a program.

The debugger experience with Emacs/Slime is the best I’ve experienced (professionally I’ve used various versions of Visual Studio, and as a hobbyist, various open source IDEs.)

The programs I have written are simple. Some day I would like to grok CLOS and the condition system.

What are you quoting? That language does not appear in any parent comment or the linked Wikipedia article.

Sh.itposter

What if I have multiple people in my household who want to vote? One vote per IP address would not allow for this. And as others have pointed out, sophisticated users can get around the IP restriction.

I think putting up even small hurdles would drastically cut down on the bot problem. I outlined one idea here: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/455909

It is basically go out and solve a CAPTCHA, then vote, pasting in a url with your vote that verifies you solved the CAPTCHA. A script should be able to verify that the url is indeed for the user who cast the vote. It is not a bulletproof method, but raises just enough of a hurdle that is would be hard for bots, but realitivly easy for humans (we’d want an audio version or other alternative for the visually impaired; I’m not sure what the state of the art is).

Doesn’t solve the problem of one real person operating several alts. Frankly, I don’t know how important that is to solve.

Thank you, I see your point now. You are worried bad actors could simply join this instance.

They could, but then they would fall under the guidelines and moderation of this instance. I’m not sure in practice how big of a worry this is.

And bad actors can join without needing to come from a banned instance.

This doesn’t change my view of defederation. (I won’t claim to know the correct use/threshold for defederation, this is all new to me! I’m mostly here to enjoy the discussions, not worry about what might go wrong.)

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. On the one hand, you say:

Defederating entire instances does not stop bad actors, but an active strongwilled community does.

This makes me think you are saying not to defederate because it would be better to call out bad behavior - interact with the bad actors and point out their falsehoods, hate, etc. But on the other hand, you say:

I don’t interact with them. I don’t provide them with any value.

and

It’s not our responsibility to moderate other instances.

These make me think you are saying just ignore them. And if we’re going to just ignore them, how is that different from the perspective of the bad actors, from defederating? How does not moderating and not interacting stop bad actors?

This is all new to me, I don’t know the best use of defederating, but I didn’t follow the argument you were making.