Or you could start a startup that codes circles around its competitors (see Nubank, which became large enough to acquire Rich Hickey's team). There's a growing list of Clojure unicorns, most of whom have a tech-forward culture.
Agree with the challenges you mentioned using new tech at a more mainstream company.
Have you tried it? I was skeptical too until I built a few apps with it. The learning curve is easier than it seems (I started by modifying the examples) and it really does cut down on development time - turns out much of modern web programming revolves around network management and its associated complexities.
> Does the tech have any local caching options to make this a little more sane for a worst case an end user?
This is trivially solved in Electric- as long as you hold onto a client-side handle of the data, it won't be unmounted.
I largely agree with the comments here, that LLMs struggle with Clojure but Claude does it best at the moment. I also use it mainly for writing individual functions, though it occasionally correctly generates a simple Electric app with my desired functionality (Projects help, along with giving it lots of examples).
The most optimistic outlook I've heard on AI+Clojure is that AI is not magical and still benefits from good abstractions. So hopefully as models get better at reasoning, using something like Electric Clojure will help them write clean, maintainable code.
Booster executed a successful landing burn and had a soft splashdown. Starship survived reentry, did the flip and landing burn, and splashed down. There was visible damage to the flaps.
Booster is designed to land directly on the launch mount, but that won't be attempted until they are confident it won't blow up the whole base.
Starship is designed to land on any flat surface (earth, moon, mars) but again they won't attempt ground landing until they feel confident in the design.
They don't right now, because they are still testing. They can't risk bringing the booster or the ship back over land, because they don't know yet how well and precise they can steer and maneuver them. When they've figured that out, we will see the first landing of a super heavy booster for recovery and that will be pretty spectacular I bet …
You had to read pretty far to get to the reason for mounting upside-down:
"The way to solve that problem was totally placing the aircraft upside-down. With antennae on the belly of the plane and the belly facing the sky, we could rotate, tip and spin the plane any way we wanted and the pedestal would be safely below the aircraft and out of the way."
reply