I'm not sure if it's because my personal projects are small enough I know them inside out and my work project is huge, but I prefer terminal code agents for day work over ide integration.

There has been a slow burn change to social pressure and autonomy. It seems like women don't want to have a large family, or some a family at all, if the choice is there. The rationale about why they put it off are unlikely to be worth much.

I think every economic remedy will fail. But it'll probably pick up again because I imagine social pressure will turn. All this noise people are making about it right now is the start. Personally I see that as a negative, we should be celebrating a downward population trend. We had so many years of warning about the effects of an ever larger population and now get hand wringing the moment that looks wrong.

I don't know about cost saving, but if it's keeping the context size down I've had a lot better results using subagents to keep a higher order conversation clean for longer.

Secondly, put yourself in the opposite situation, do you really care if someone forgot your name? Does it even reflect how well you know someone? I had a friend at scouts when I was a kid and we were inseparable for a year. Never remembered his name. Didn't matter.

What would have been better is if the politicians who started the whole thing to settle party politics didn't bugger off the moment things didn't go their way and instead did a follow up referendum with the options for leaving. I don't necessarily think the eventual deal would have been different, but it would have stopped a lot of the bickering. And maybe have exposed what leaving meant to a greater number of people.

I don't live in the UK any more, but I do enjoy reading the stories along the lines of "I voted for brexit and now my business has gone to shit" of which there are a surprisingly large number. The whole "we didn't want them telling us what to do but didn't think they'd apply rules to us like we weren't in the EU" crowd.

I can't tell if you made a mistake and meant the wallet isn't the constraint. These short burst sentences are really hard to read. Write "As we'll see, the constraint is x.". There's no need to split that, a single sentence conveys the whole point.

The article is full of similar wording, and that's why it feels choppy to read.

> The rest of this essay is about why that is harder than the press understands. And about a second problem hiding underneath it

I'd describe this as chain of thought writing. It's fine in casual conversation, with the words just tumbling out of our mouths, but it doesn't work in writing or speeches. There are so many ways the two concepts expressed there could be worded, combined or separated. "The press has an unfortunate tendency to use hyperbole and simple descriptions, but even with those stripped away there are deeper misconceptions..."

It's interesting that folks have honed in on AI as the problem. I'm my view the issue is that you haven't decided on your writing style, and as a non native speaker, you're unable to write a simple phrase and get AI to embellish it. Writing simple phrases is surprisingly difficult. Try making everything concise, with no repitition, and then adding style and flowery language afterwards.

Edit: sorry I may have read another person's comment about being a non native speaker. Writing concisely is something we can all work on.

My current remote employer does as good a job at building trust between employees with 6 monthly on-sites. But they also do things that expose cross team productivity issue: rotate people in leadership roles between all the different company meetings, so the CEO might be in the planning meeting this week. Get different people in different roles to join customer calls. Not just anecdote at the coffee machine, actually see what's happening across the company.

I'm not sure about their vinegar claim - I buy a horticultural vinegar and I haven't noticed any bad effects on the soil where I've used it. The main issue is just that you have to spray more often.

This points to the industrial revolution not being clear progress but requiring specific starting conditions. Steam machines had been around as a curiosity for a long time. And there's no guarantee there would have been slower progress to similar electrical technology without coal/steam because those things also accelerated the development of metallurgy and precision manufacturing specifically. Coal powered machines got efficiency with better precision made iron and steel, coincidentally things that required coal to make.

So I doubt we'd be where we are without coal, it might go further as without coal and the specific circumstances of coal access and necessity on the home island of a nation that has become an economic powerhouse by conquest.

But we can't run the world again. Hopefully we can bounce up to the next level and drop the majority of fossil fuel dependence. We've been pretty dumb about it imo in that we know there are potentially massive downsides too continuing to use it like we are, and we know there are areas like air transport that might have no alternative, so smart would be to transition everything as fast as possible to preserve the niche uses.

But unlikely a result of said battle, rather the instability of politics in France.

Us British oft think of Waterloo as a great victory, although the circumstances, participants and objectives were pretty nuanced. Wellington himself rejected congratulations and thought battle to have very high cost.