"Hard guidelines" is making me think of the Pirate Code from Disney's Pirates of The Caribbean.

Even the UUIDs aren't bad, they're a reasonable solution to Zooko's triangle. You can't globally assign names.

> You should be able to compile a relatively small, trimmed, standalone, AOT compiled library

Yes-ish. We do AOT at work on a fairly large app and keep tripping over corners. Admittedly we don't use COM. I believe if you know the objects you are using upfront then code generation will take care of this for you. The other options are:

- self-contained: this just means "compiler puts a copy of the runtime alongside your executable". Works fine, at the cost of tens of megabytes

- self-contained single file: the above, but the runtime is zipped into the executable. May unpack into a temporary directory behind the scenes. Slightly easier to handle, minor startup time cost.

Can we at least distinguish between descriptive and normative?

The lesson from Mamdani is that the only way forwards for actual policy based and anticorruption politics is within the Democrat primaries. These are even run by the state in many states, I believe.

Eradicate the Republican party as an organization, split the Democrats into "normal right" and "maybe a bit left" factions, and see if you can get preference voting in there as well while asking for a pony.

These guys are a bit of a problem in Edinburgh, but not an EV-specific one; before they were using trail bikes, which were an additional nuisance with the noise.

Not sure what level of intrusive surveillance would be needed to deal with this.

Key word is "believed". It doesn't sound like they actually benchmarked.

There is nothing to believe. Random 4K reads for HDD is slow.

You're eliding the distinction between people and businesses. There's no reason Amazon the company would have to be smaller simply because the Bezos fortune was distributed among more people. It didn't get 50% smaller or employ 50% fewer people when he got divorced and had to split the marital property.

Fair point. Let’s take McKinsey and her woke charities. She sold Amazon shares and drove it into the charities. The charities are now consuming more. So there has to be equal decrease somewhere else right? People are consuming equally less somewhere else to allow for extra activity in charities.

You might think this is a nitpick but this is my main argument. If you redistribute Bezos wealth to poor people, there has to be equivalent reduction somewhere else.

MacKenzie's charities mainly focus on job training, education, health, and you posit that'll cause an equivalent reduction in spending somewhere else?

Is that really your train of thought?

> Historically the only time the trend of wealth accumulation reverses is during massive crises, wars, and civilizational collapse which make life worse for everyone and nobody with any sense would wish for.

Yes. Which is why the question of social responsibility of the rich matters far more, because they can't help getting involved in politics. And a lot of them seem surprisingly pro-collapse, or at least pro-authoritarian. It's a common pattern in South American countries where demands for rights and equality scare the property owning class, because they might have to share a bit with the general population; this results in coups, dictators, suppression of protests etc, which results in an equally violent retaliation. You don't get Castro without Batista.

Since the general agreement that money = speech = votes, the habit of rich people buying news media to be their personal propaganda (e.g. Bezos with WaPo, the Berlusconi media empire, Murdoch etc), has also made the world a lot worse.

AI accelerates the problem, since part of the pitch is "we're going to obliterate a large amount of white collar and lower middle class work entirely, while also removing the state safety net". Not clear whether that will actually happen as promised to the shareholders, but it could be hugely disruptive.

Then there's people's more local, lived experiences with landlordism and the minor rich. A particular local example I heard recently: https://www.sheffieldtribune.co.uk/a-london-lawyer-bought-hu...

The power of wealth certainly comes with a lot of responsibility. Which is why I would be curious to have a more detailed view on what all these hyper-rich people are actually doing with their money, and how they came to be so wealthy. We have some obvious examples of power accumulation and evil, and some clear examples of doing great good in the form of philanthropy. So while It doesn't make sense to me that so few individuals should have so much money and power, I still don't think we should count them all as defacto evil.

I'm more saying there's a sort of historical inevitability in the whole situation and we might benefit by taking that into consideration. And that some degree of nuance and tolerance of unfairness might play into a realistic solution.

Regarding landlordism, it's another tricky issue where yes there are bad big landlords, but the policies I've seen that put in place to tackle them tend disincentivize renting altogether and the first ones out of the market are the little guys, exasterbating the housing crisis in most cities. It seems to me an area where tolerating the bad actors is necessary to avoid crashing the whole system, to my point.

#250, but then I wasn't trying to make predictions for a future AI. Or anyone else, really. Got a high score mostly for status quo bias, e.g. visual languages going nowhere and FPGAs remain niche.

Yeah, it be much more interesting to see the people who made (at the time) outrageous claims, but they came to be true, rather than a list of people who could state that the status quo most likely would stay as it is.