>the least efficient healthcare system in the world

and the most advanced healthcare

>ineffectual public education

actually it's better than most rich countries after controlling for race/ethnicity

that said, healthcare, education, and most of all housing are massively far from free markets, they're the most regulated parts and it's hard to innovate. the more free you make those markets, the better they'll get.

>massive wealth disparity

because, and this is no exaggeration, we are way fucking wealthier than almost anything except oil-rich Norway and tiny Luxembourg. it's a lot easier to have disparity when some grasses grow tall.

>crumbling national infrastructure

depends; California and New York yes, Texas no

>and a different school shooting every week

not that often but this is an american pathology yeah

Well, if a European dev asked me how I could possibly know if they'd make more in a less regulated environment, I would point to American salaries.

Agree it's hard to know things and that antitrust arrangement was bad. If we're talking policy, we are implicitly accepting counterfactual reasoning (because otherwise why would we change policy).

are you a software engineer?

This just reads as "I don't know whether you're on Other Team.. but, I'll assume you are, here goes:"

Everywhere.

Remember Satya Nadella estimating 30% of code at Microsoft was written by AI? That was March. At this point it's ubiquitous—and invisible.

The tricky thing is that it's actually also hard to say how the suffering gets into the meat, too (the human animal), which is why we can't just write it off.

In fact, sometimes I screenshot them and use Mac's new built-in OCR to copy them, because Manus gives me three options but they disappear if I click one, and sometimes I really like 2 or even all 3.

But my opinions about what LLMs can do are based on... what LLMs can do. What I can see them doing. With my eyes.

The right answer to the question "What can LLMs do?" is... looking... at what LLMs can do.

should, therefore, large companies, even ones that succeed largely in a clean way by just being better at delivering what that business niche exists for, be made to never grow too big, in order to avoid impacting very many people? keep in mind that people engage in voluntary business transactions because they want to be impacted (positively—but not every impact can be positive, in any real world)

what if its less efficient substitutes collectively lay off 4%, but the greater layoffs are hidden (simply because it's not a single employer doing it which may be more obvious)?

to an extent, a larger population inevitably means that larger absolute numbers of people will be affected by...anything

I think you are conflating a "business yes man" with a "newspaper angle yes man". It is fine for a major newspaper to endorse certain values, and distance themselves from others! It's fine because it's a big country with a lot of newspapers!