Why are they still building it? Because each team thinks that THEY are the ones who can prevent it from destroying humanity, but they have to get to AGI first, before the other teams make an AI that does destroy humanity.

But also, if AGI doesn't destroy humanity, it would be the most powerful weapon in the world, and they want to be the ones in control of it. Keeping the focus on Armageddon distracts from the real and severe problems that arise if a single person, or even a small group, controls an AGI.

And yet, every year, we're still underbuilding relative to our population growth, thus making the problem worse. Unless our population starts to shrink like in Japan or Russia, we're either going to need to build A LOT of new housing or deal with an ever increasing population of homeless people.

Even a slowly shrinking population is probably not enough to fix the problem, because rich people like to buy vacation homes, and we have a lot of rich people. We'd need rapid population decline, like what would happen from some catastrophe. I recommend building homes instead of that.

The amount of money required to fix the housing shortage is negligible for a country as rich as the US. But money isn't the problem here, politics is. And no amount of money can fix that.

I've been very successful in my career. Things I've built: Bloomberg's domain-specific language and simulation engine for asset-backed securities, a custom database that can process 100,000s of writes / second and 10,000s of reads / second, and the robotics framework powering the Cruise self-driving car (RIP). I retired at the age of 33.

The domain you're working in is usually more important to fully understand than software engineering concepts, although I try to understand both. But I don't really care about software development for its own sake, and I welcome LLMs replacing the more annoying grunt-work parts of the job.

With a 100% private development, you can have a land value tax - it's legal if you just call it rent, and you can increase it however much you want (at most it's capped to 5% + inflation, a lot higher than the 2% (not inflation adjusted) cap for property tax increases).

And no, this won't be social housing. NIMBYs will say they want social housing, but they won't vote in taxes to pay for it (in CA, every tax increase must pass in a ballot referendum), nor do they actually want it built anywhere, either. Because only private money is being used for this development, it will mostly be market-rate housing, and that's fine. Or most likely, it will be nothing, since rural NIMBYs will block it.

In cities, NIMBYs will say "why should we build anything here, just move away and build your dream city somewhere else". I knew that there was no way that "somewhere else" would welcome construction of a new city, because there's people living out in the boonies everywhere. Those people moved to the middle of nowhere because they want to be far away from others - they're the last people who'd support new construction nearby.

So here's a new city proposal, paid for by private money, that won't take away anything from anyone, and even people who live far from the area seem to oppose it, just because it changes things.

Where are people supposed to live? There are not enough homes in cities, not enough homes in suburbs, and rural areas don't want new construction either. So where are the new homes for a growing population supposed to go? Or do y'all just want to keep increasing the homeless population indefinitely?

The problem is, it sets you apart from the people you're allegedly trying to help, given that the marginalized are rarely those who got an elite education at an elite institution. This is how Republicans, a coalition of rich tax-avoiders and poorer people resenting the contempt of the elites, stay in power. And their political program - slashing benefits, cutting social services - hurts marginalized people the most.

By creating a way to be a "good person" that only the most hip and educated people can follow, the language policers are creating a rift between themselves and the people they are trying to help, preventing a political coalition from forming that would be able to pass helpful policies.

That being said, they should definitely prosecute wage theft much more than they are now. Maybe the fear of jail time if wage theft were actually prosecuted a few times would deter most other potential wage thieves.

I thought back then that even if it succeeded in gaining enough users to beat Twitter, it would fail because eventually investors' demand for growth would force them to add ads anyway. You see this happening with cable TV, Roku, and now even Apple.

The only way to prevent this is to have a company motivated by something other than growing profits, but that comes with its own problems: stagnation, bloated bureaucracy, and capture by special interests without profit to keep the organization honest and lean.

I don't know what the right solution is, only that in very competitive for-profit markets, companies don't dare to worsen the user experience with ads lest they lose customers to a competitor. Given the barriers to entry for developing a new smartphone, including the strong network effect of the app store and OS APIs, this is not that type of market. Most androids already have ads and bloatware, so Apple isn't facing any competitive pressure on this front, sadly.

And how does Yishan know why Twitter bans people? And why should we trust that he knows? As far as I can tell, bans are almost completely random because they are enacted by random low-wage contract workers in a foreign country with a weak grasp of English and a poor understanding of Twitter's content policy (if there even is one).

Unlike what Yishan claims, it doesn't seem to me like Twitter cares at all about how pleasant an experience using Twitter is, only that its users remain addicted to outrage and calling-out others, which is why most Twitter power-users refer to it as a "hellsite".

Maybe global public squares don't work for the humans we have. That's ok.