Orders of magnitude matter.

I'm not as bitter as I could be. I'm actually quite surprised at the sanity of not avoiding the health topic completely - I think only OpenAI had a few months where ChatGPT was tip toeing in any health related conversation. Otherwise it's been almost completely ungated, and it saved and helped countless lives.

I really wish they'd find a way to ungate health and legitimate research topics.

My answer to the trolley problem is that you're allowed to not kill... unless you're the railway manager. If you're in a position of authority you pull the shit out of that switch, and then drink yourself to sleep at night. This is what authority means, not choosing the "feel good, ignore the people that could have been saved" path.

I'm not saying that's _why_ they're excited. But it's a great time to be a builder, and a terrible time to be a worker ant.

Exactly what Ukraine was doing before the war, only more of it. A mixture of low level corruption, kleptocracy and outright feudalism.

And if you combine a shitton of data with a lot of compute, large userbase and good engineers, you have a pretty good chance of doing something interesting.

And I say this as somebody who just discovered agent orchestration and would absolutely love their limits to remain as they are.

Ah, and obviously you put a claude/codex on it, so your actual work is just ... installing claude, and maybe a linux. The rest is done by the AI - setup, scripting etc.

As a colocated option... I see it work for some people. But it'd be a niche offering, when the whole value proposition is "make my own, with blackjack and hookers".

And there are options now.

That's a really stupid way to reject free advertisement. If UA picked them of all exoskeleton providers, that's decent signal. If it passes the pilot program and gets into regular use, even in a niche, that's strong signal. Either way, I'd call them to offer support, not hint that they'll refuse to sell.

Anyways, in case you're serious: there is a famous thought experiment about healthcare: should a hospital administrator approve a complex and expensive treatment to save a 7 year old girl, with a 100% success probability? Or more to the point: is approving this a "good" act, or a "bad" act? The unintuitive answer is that it depends on the opportunity cost long term, and the math is far from obvious. The quick answer is often "not even wrong" - it simply ignores a lot of facts down the line. The same cash can be used very boringly to do maintenance or to buy a piece of life saving equipment.

And it gets very dirty very fast. The easy version is pay for the operation vs buy an MRI machine - in this case you can at least compare apples to apples, if you squint - an MRI machine also saves lives. But if the alternative is renovating a waiting room, you're really off the deep end. Because doing it one time it's an obvious decision: just save the life. And it's not even bad as a general policy: have waiting rooms be a bit dusty, if this means spending more money on treatments. But... how much to cut, exactly? And then you have second order effects: throwing a moderate amount to waiting rooms can make them look a lot better, while having it linger in disrepair can make people actually avoid the hospital (if they can't even paint the walls, why would you trust them with your life?).

And all of this is assuming the hospital admin actually has mental bandwidth and latitude to make this decision. In practice, he's looking at the kid's mom when he has to turn her down because the operation money would pay for renovating a whole hospital wing. And the mom is an influencer with a large following.

> democratize the means of production

This means having humans make such decisions, and even worse, it means a committee or a mob will make such decisions. Zero skin in the game, all vibes and feelings. Some girls will get saved, but I've seen how hospitals look in such a system, and it's not good.

To note: the US system may or may not be "democratized", but it managed to have exactly the same flaws - most decisions are taken by humans in a bureaucracy. The government simply wrote the rules then outsourced the bureaucracy and the blame to private corporations.

But saying the Democratic party, with AOC, Bernie Sanders and two decades of progressism is "right"... you might as well say the sky is green. That's just ignoring any meaning of the words, not trying to find a more precise one.