What's true though? I don't believe that I have a way to find out.

Another part is "how do we communicate project goals and ideals and standards?" The answer to that, I'd argue, is not simple, and will inherently run into scale issues. It's something that needs to be tackled as you move from a bespoke craft project to an industrial project.

Now, maybe you never move. It's okay and good for hobby projects to exist. But let's be clear about the choice there.

I've seen policies like this in various places and they do not generally seem to be based quantitative measures of code functionality, security, and efficiency.

There are other approaches to take to deal with large numbers of incoming PRs: improved CI, AI-readable standards for AI code, better static testing, AI first-pass review, etc.

It's fine to enshrine hobbyism into your code review policy to keep things fun and human-scale. On the other hand, where projects actually matter, it is necessary to think about code review as part of an industrial process with inputs and outputs, one where this sort of thing has no place.

For example, you want small inching movement. From what starting point? Inching movement from the near-zero flows of the mid-20th century? Inching movement from the mass flows of the 21st century? Both ideas would have major consequences, and if you are going to advocate for mass social change, you should think it out and advocate with care and thoughtfulness.

> Prediction market trader 'Magamyman' made $553,000 on death of Iran's supreme leader

Edit in response to your edit:

Would I risk myself standing in front of a FSD Tesla versus in front of an Uber or an average human-controlled car with the standard percentage chance of the human texting or being otherwise distracted or drunk or tired? I would take FSD. And I think that a mathematical rather than emotional evaluation of the odds would make risk-minded people do the same.