And even then, I've used a batch writer pattern to get 180k writes per second on a commodity vps.

I come in knowing what I need to build and at least one idea or more of how it should be done. I present the problem, constraints, potential solutions, and ask for criticisms and alternatives. I can keep it as broad as possible or I can get more granular like struct layouts, api endpoints, etc. I go back and forth until there's an approach I prefer and then I code that approach.

| it can code pretty well given a very tight and limited scope.

It's wildly better at tight and limited scope than large scale changes but even then I would rather code it myself.

Developers should write their own code and use LLMs to design and verify. Better, faster architecture and planning, pre-cleaned PRs and no skill atrophy or loss of understanding on the part of the developer.

Throughout human history, it was rare for only two people to raise a child, let alone one. Or for women to not bring money into the home.

Like many "trad" trends, it's based more on advertising and television than history.

Given those precautions if it is just memory or some form of deanonymization that's also cause for concern.

The double edged brilliance/danger of capitalism is that it constantly opens up and moves into new markets. This is good, it means once the market determines a need, capital investment can accelerate production of the good that meets that need.

But the flip side is it is coming for everything. Everything will be marketized and monetized and accelerated and made efficient. And there are genuine problems with that.

Regulation has been the historical response, but we've seen concentrated wealth chip away at regulations for decades or even rip them apart overnight.

This is a contradiction that needs to be resolved. One can be pro-capitalism or anti-capitalism and come to the same conclusion.

Films on film using in camera effects are still made on occasion but they’re art films for niche audiences.

But we’ll never get another Ben Hur. And that doesn’t sit well with me even if society can’t yet fully explain why.

It would take a well-respected org pushing a standard library that has clear benefits over "package shopping."

Like I said, it's complicated.

| I agree that American decline will not resemble Russian collapse.

Then we are in agreement.

I wouldn't take the time to argue otherwise, although it's a question of what's considered an "internal cause." Afghanistan comes to mind. But generally, yes, absent any external pressure, the internal mismanagement still would have had the Soviet system in a very bad way and collapse would have been a matter of time.

So we're not particularly in disagreement there, except for matters of degree (100%? eh.)

But I disagree strongly that shock therapy can be put solely on the shoulders of Gaidar. You can't talk about shock therapy without talking about Jeffrey Sachs. Although I wouldn't put it all on his shoulders either. It was an extremely complicated situation from top to bottom.

But most of all, my post was really more about the how the American empire's fall will not look like the Soviet's. And I stand by that completely.

As for the US, for all the current turmoil, the dollar is still supreme in global economics, its soft power is still immense, despite the immigration chaos its still the primary destination for immigrants, and it would take decades for countries to push out our military bases because doing so would often mean building up their own military infrastructure.

Trump's unconstitutionality is a threat, and that the US has a series of bubbles built on shaky economics is not controversial. But I don't see how that could possibly result in a Soviet style singular day of collapse. At least internally, there isn't a cultural and linguistic separation between states the way there was with Russian imposition on their Soviet satellite countries.

And of course, there's the previously mentioned shock therapy, something that wouldn't have the same level of violent effect because the US is already a market economy. And there's nobody powerful enough to impose something like that on us regardless. Unlike the Soviets, if the US goes down, much of the world goes down with us, so there's strong incentives for an off-ramp, not a destabilization.

I agree there are major structural issues, and the US democratic system is being stress tested daily, but its all symptoms of decline, not imminent collapse.

It's unlikely collapse will be felt as a singular, apocalyptic event. More like a slow, steady loss of influence and excess wealth. Countries on the periphery stop considering the empire's perspectives before making their own decisions. Other trading partners emerge. Bridges stop getting maintained until they're no longer usable.

And soft power declines. Imagine a day when the biggest pop star in the US, someone on the scale of Michael Jackson or Madonna nationally, is virtually unknown outside of its borders.

There are reasons to believe the American empire is in decline, but I maintain this will look more like Britain. It could take 50 years before American fully realize it.

Thankfully, that means there's plenty of time to reverse or mitigate the trends, or to make a decision to strengthen the Republic over the Empire.