I don't think I fully agree with it, but OPs point wasn't about any of that and instead said capital gains (and clarified further - fungible, uninvolved capital without any other contribution). That's really different. If you want to attack that maybe use an example of passive index investors or pension funds allocating capital to a vc.

As another commenter said, for a ton of people this is the first taste of the computer working for them and being able to dream something up then have it exist. This is very cool!

That in no way invalidates the concern of amateur slop going to maintainers! I think the problem here is we as society haven't caught up to this new idea of personal software vs community (architected, maintained) software. We're so early in this space we haven't even figured out the good ways to do such a split - even the totally new to software folks are bleeding edge early adopters.

Also, having a baseline of public care and then private as an option on top doesn't sound like the boogeyman this is pitching it as to me. That seems like a great way to reduce the scope of what the state needs to be in charge of.

If the take is that government cannot possibly work for the people no matter what then yeah, all policy is bad.

Free market usefully means both sides can choose to participate in transactions which means price is how they do that. It is a useful concept but it doesn't cover everything, like what you mentioned and things like if emergency patients are shopping around hospitals or if the average consumer is capable of being well informed in such a market.

It will be interesting to see if the LLM companies can establish their own "brand" and how they will do that. LLM voice is a thing but not sure if it's a good thing people will use to hang their self identity on. Distillation of models and constant training also make this complicated. Claude code is winning on harness and ux right now but it seems precarious and also easy to commoditize. I think elon tried to add branding to his chatbot pretty intelligently by being iconically crude/evil/"anti woke" since it's both highly visible and less likely to be copied.

We live in fascinating times!

Is "invaders" on that list to?

Population growth can happen with or without immigration.

Also, what? Are you describing a healthy economy?

Nobody above said people who disagree with them are irrational.

Nobody said immigration should happen faster than anyone can assimilate.

They said preventing people from applying for green cards while on an existing visa will make it much much harder to immigrate legally.

If you think immigrants need more time to assimilate so they don't change your culture but you still think immigration is good then it seems like you'd be against this change. On the other hand if you want to limit immigration to just the wealthy this sounds like exactly the matching policy.

Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way. Even if they all did think the US was perfect and their country of origin was garbage that STILL doesn't mean they think other people from their country are bad, obviously. Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.

You can turn your drive-by dismissal into something really informative if you want to.

I think both are right - shouldn't ignore crime and should be responsible in addressing it.

It sounds like the point here is "all we need is an honest and earnest legislative branch" and, yes, I agree that would help us get on the right track. Similarly, a judicial branch change of heart in the same way would really help relieve the anger and hopelessness people are feeling.

If you have ideas for how to actually make either of those happen they would be worth sharing and pushing forward.