Has there been much focus on creating systems that have a built in expiration date, so they have to be rebuilt regularly with the increased understanding.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48321734

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

This would allow niches to exist, without people being able to post off-topic things to your feed.

Human civilisations tend toward monocultures. One way of thinking crowds out the others - not because anyone chooses it, but because successful ideas spread. This has always happened. It is happening faster now.

A forest civilisation resists this deliberately. Not by fighting successful ideas - they may be good - but by keeping the space around them alive. Many forms. Generating more.

What follows are structures that help. Not values. Not principles. Structures. Things you can build.

---

*Build things that expire.* Any rule or institution that protects diversity should have a death date. If it's still needed, rebuild it from scratch. Rebuilding forces re-examination. Renewal breeds complacency.

*Before you act at scale, feel what it costs.* Any decision that reshapes how others live should begin with a serious effort to experience what it would diminish. Not a report. An experience. What disappears that no metric captures? If you cannot feel the loss, you are not ready to cause it.

*Ask: if my thing won completely, what would be gone?* Imagine your proposal succeeding totally. What is the world missing? The answer is not a reason to stop. It is a reason to make your thing smaller — the version that achieves what matters without eliminating what you would grieve.

*Protect things you cannot explain.* Keep a budget - of time, money, attention - for things that do not yet make sense. A civilisation that only funds what it can justify has stopped being able to discover what it does not yet know.

*Let different things be different from each other.* The temptation is to merge, resolve, synthesise. Sometimes the disagreement is the point. Two incompatible ideas can both be needed. A forest holds contradictions. That is what biodiversity is.

*Watch for sameness disguised as choice.* A thousand options built on the same assumptions is a monoculture with good marketing. The test is how differently things fail. If everything fails the same way when stressed, there is only one thing, wearing costumes.

*Distribute the capacity to build.* A forest where only one species can reproduce is not a forest for long. When only a few can build, those few determine what exists. When many can build, what exists is unpredictable. Unpredictable is alive.

*Make it easy to leave.* Any system you cannot walk away from is a cage, regardless of how good it is. The test is not whether people stay. It is whether they can leave and still live well.

*Notice the individual.* The person doing the strange thing alone needs to know someone sees them. Create awards for interesting failure. Fund what cannot yet explain why it matters.

*Throw feasts.* The test of whether a new thing is can you celebrate using what you have grown? The feast is where solitary things discover they are part of a forest. Culture is not decoration. It is the thing that makes people want to stay.

*Check whether the canopy is actually closing.* Before assuming diversity is under threat, look carefully. Are people arguing about fundamentals? Do weird things exist? Can people fail in different ways? A forest with a few big trees is not a monoculture. These structures are for when the space for difference is genuinely shrinking. If it is not, they are unnecessary. Go enjoy the forest.

---

A forest civilisation is not a utopia. It is messy, competitive, uncomfortable. There is no harmony - there is coexistence, which is harder and more alive.

These structures are themselves subject to their own rules. They should expire and be rebuilt.

Many forms. Generating more. That is the whole thing.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47361981

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

[1] https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/

But general purpose compute no

I've been working on wasm sandboxing and automatic verification that code doesn't have the lethal trifecta and got something working in a couple of days.

I'd like to do a clean rewrite at some point.

This seems like a very hard problem with coding specifically as you want unsafe content (web searches) to be able to impact sensitive things (code).

I'd love to find people to talk to about this stuff.

Use AI to scaffold relationships not replace them.

That is hard too though.

It would require it not to be easy to farm (Entropy detection on user behaviour perhaps and clique detection).

If done in an auditably unlogged environment (with a limited output to the company, just saying escalate) it might also encourage people to share vulns they are worried about putting online.

Does that make sense from your experience?

[1] https://github.com/eb4890/echoresponse/blob/main/design.md

Would love to have a chat with people about it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46533792

Points: 1

# Comments: 0