Not entirely unwarranted given the track record of LLMs as a chef though:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/10/pak-n-save-sav...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11gzejgz4o

Of course it was two years ago and it's unlikely to happen again, but that's the drawback of the “move fast and break things” attitude: sometimes you've broken public perception and it's hard to fix afterwards.

Excuse me, what?! Spending $22k a month in infra as a pre-money startup is insane.

Any history major with interest in medieval Europe, yes, any middle schooler? No way.

That's the diaspora's luxury. They don't have to endure the pain of the conflict or sanctions, and they always end up being the biggest hardliners for that reason.

Having another mad man at the head of the US makes the issue worse, but even impeaching him wouldn't solve the problem on its own.

If the US stop giving unconditional blank check support to Israel, then the nuisance power of the Jewish supremacists there disappears overnight. The US popular support for Israel is now at an all time low, and the recent war may be the straw that breaks the Camel's back.

All that's needed to stabilize the region is some amount of pushback to the destabilizing country here. Iran have been a destabilizing force for the past decade, but since 2023 Israel is by far the biggest threat to the region, and it's mostly due to Netanyahu's political survival relying on the state of perpetual war he's put the country in.

Should the US put even a modicum amount of pressure to Israel (or even just declare they wouldn't support them should the EU put economic sanctions on Israel), then the current cabinet collapse, Netanyahu ends up in prison for corruption and the middle east is stable for a decade.

All of this madness is happening because the US enables a madman to escape his own judicial system through foreign wars.

The only viable passage would be through the center of Oman (no mountain here) but that would be a gigantic canal. And that wouldn't really solve the issue, as the Iranians could easily block the canal as long as it is within reach of their drones and ballistic missile: you just need to hit one ship in the canal to effectively block it.

Ships aren't going up there in this century.

They used to spend years to do that, now they managed to do it in just over a month.

This is your quote right? Now tell me how this doesn't resemble the “fabrication” above?

And indeed it follows from my reply as well: if setting prices independently from costs is OK, then monopolies are good. Because market competition is lauded for preventing exactly that.

Yikes. Thank you I'm not going to read “Lessons learned” by someone this careless.

I unsubscribed at some point because I wasn't working with JavaScript this much, but it's disappointing to see that this work has gone nowhere in the meantime.

I like how Rust futures are canceled by dropping them, even though it's also a footgun (though IMHO this is more of a problem with the select! pattern than with drop-to-cancel proper).

> > False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in this five-year period, homelessness increased by about 30,000

Ah, I see the problem now, OP changed their previous answer to this question, which explains the lack of mutual understanding between the two of us.

The previous answer, which I called bullshit, used to multiply the number of homeless people in California by the price of a buying house and used that as an argument. I think we can agree that this is a very poor one as I've not see anyone suggesting buying real estate at market rate and giving it to homeless people for free. Also, it used to be the first question.

That being said, I don't think the question makes any sense anyway even with its updated answer: how you spend the money has as much impact as how much money you spend. The answer means we can agree that California's current policy to fight homelessness is arguably a failure, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a cheaper policy leading to better results (like how European countries spend much less in healthcare than Americans for a significantly better health and higher life expectancy). But on the flip side, even if such a good policy existed, that wouldn't mean solving homelessness is trivial like the original tweet suggests.