agreed - America went through a "mandolin mania" in ~1880s, and even in the 1900s and 1910s, the guitar was by no means an established instrument.
As a matter of fact, the "tenor guitar" was made for people who knew how to play the very popular four string banjo, but wanted to play a guitar without learning new chords.
Instruments were in a state of change, and the "harp" nomenclature (and styling) for a 12-string guitar was more a marketing flourish than a family lineage.
The difference is that CEOs fired a lot of people, using "AI can replace human coders" as an excuse. Also: there are claims all over the headlines along the lines of "We built something amazing without human coders."
Both claims are loud and are flooding the discussion, but under the hood it's mostly a slop disaster.
So the negative sentiment is a natural response (and a dose of realism).
Mix in exhaustion from previous hype cycles (NFTs?) and folks pushing the narrative that if you currently write any code manually, you’re obsolete and it’s hard to not want to push back negatively. Even if you find the tech interesting/useful.
Bayesian optimization of, say, hyperparameters is the canonical modern usage in my view, and there are other similar optimization problems where it's the preferred approach.
My take is that the Rasmussen book isn't especially approachable, and that this book has actually held back the wider adoption of GPs in the world.
The book has been seen as the authoritative source on the topic, so people were hesitant to write anything else. At the same time, the book borders on impenetrable.
This perspective under-appreciates the role of a leader's charisma when it comes to attracting staff that will actually execute the ideas of that leader.
Anyone who has worked in a presidential administration (or a congressional office) can tell you that a leader is effective if and only if they have staff that believes in their message and agenda, and that is willing and able to execute on that agenda.
The practical reality here is that charisma isn't just a way of gaming the "getting elected" part of the job, it's also a requirement to be effective at the job.
I think you didn't get to the part of how it would work in practice. It's not that the leader is selected randomly, it is that the people that select positions are randomly chosen. Also, your criticism only is valid if everyone through that being able to sell an idea is critical for the leader. The leader role is to manage the resources to accomplish the goal of the team, what the goal of the team is, is up to the team to decide.
Yes, especially as prime minister or president, you need to be the face of the country. For everyone: not just your party. And while listening to the public is an important part of the job, sometimes you also need to explain things to the public. Same with ministers, to a slightly lesser degree.
I feel one downside of a district-based system like in the US is that it's harder to build up a healthy mix of representatives, where some are more on the charismatic side and others more on the technical "policy wonk" side. Everyone needs to win their own elections, so it's biased too much towards the charismatic side.
As a matter of fact, the "tenor guitar" was made for people who knew how to play the very popular four string banjo, but wanted to play a guitar without learning new chords.
Instruments were in a state of change, and the "harp" nomenclature (and styling) for a 12-string guitar was more a marketing flourish than a family lineage.