This implies a contradiction that doesn't exist.

Centuries ago, the aristocracy was statistically left out of jobs and also the eternal benefactors of (quite visible!) omnipresent systemic privilege.

There are multiple potential reasons for men to, statistically, be taking fewer of a set of newly created roles. It could certainly be some systemic bias against them, but it could easily also be that they are choosing not to take them for what are surely good reasons for themselves. It could be that fewer men are interested in new jobs right now period, relative to women. I'm sure there are many other potential explanations as well.

You are asserting that DEI means that unqualified individuals are being put into positions from which they should have been excluded. That is a statement for which you have yet to provide any proof.

> uv is fast because of what it doesn’t do, not because of what language it’s written in.

The fact that the language had a small effect ("a bit") does not invalidate the statement that algorithmic improvements are the reason for the relative speed. In fact, there's no reason to believe that rust without the algorithmic version would be notably faster at all. Sure, "all" is an exaggeration, but the point made still stands in the form that most readers would understand it: algorithmic improvements are the important difference between the systems.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried. This short term thinking is one of its classic failures, because in many ways you're codifying the tragedy of the commons.

"easily" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Depending on the good and what they switch to making, this may neither be easy nor quick.

That means that all of the polish work is shoved to the bottom of the stack until it reaches sufficient critical mass that someone finally makes time for engineers to pick some of it back out.

That, I think, is the critical failure of modern Apple. The company used to understand that polish could be more important than something new and flashy, and they've forgotten that in favor of marketing and Liquid Glass.

This is actually the trajectory of both Apple News and iAd before it, which is what started out providing the ad service for Apple News. Apple would like to do a high quality solution, and then keeps relaxing their standards when there's not enough buy-in from the content providers. They were forced to allow the non-curated news formats to have sufficient content.

He's imposing upon a common in a way that is taking that from everyone else - and, as noted, in a way that's potentially dangerous.