> So you admitted that the public purse and what it is willing to pay to commission for public art is useful measure of a pseudoscientific constant

No I did no such thing. I said rich people paid for art they wanted to exist in the past and still do today. It measures nothing.

> I'm not sure that fountains of human excrement convey the grandeur that your attributing to modern art however.

You've quite missed my point if you're looking for grandeur in it. I see an artist pushing the boundaries of art. Your questioning of its value is the value (or, part of it).

> we so far have not.

That can't be stated definitively even if we limit ourselves to large-scale painting. But of course, we have far more media available to us today than 2D paintings and other traditional art forms. Breathable tanks of piss, films, video games - none of these existed in the 17th century. And each of them is capable of evoking great emotions, greater even than looking at a painting of a hundred Venetians beating the shit out of each other. You've never watchec a movie that left you feeling awe? Ah, even the piss? Sure. What if it was a thousand women in a tank of piss? Use your imagination - that's what art is about.

> In archeology there is a constant and agreed upon "decadent" style that can indicate when cultures have experienced conditions, for external or internal reasons, that ultimately led to their decline and downfall

I have never in my life heard of this claimed in an academic setting - only from retro-fetishist cranks, if you'll pardon me saying, making some "hard times create strong men" argument (which can't be entertained, being ahistorical). Nor can I think of any such phenomenon in ancient Greco-Roman history from Mycenae to the Visigoths. Are you able to expand on that?

Actually, re-reading your original post, this comes across as so asinine I do have to wonder if I'm replying to an LLM. Because it makes no sense to say that artists don't have emotions today that can compare to checks notes rowdy Venetians beating the shit out of each other.

No one is stopping you from commissioning paintings such as the ones you revere as the peak of art, by the way. Open your wallet if that's what you want. That's how great art was made back then. But if the depth of your insight on the human condition is whatever you're posting here, I do not know if your commissions would capture the meaning you seem to want.

Hey, this is really fucking stupid.

The big deal is that when a species becomes invasive, the effects can cascade. You don't just lose their direct competitors and their prey, you can lose anything they pollinate, nest in, are nested in, etc. You can replace a diverse ecosystem with a near-monoculture.

Of course, if you don't hold the fundamental belief that biodiversity is Good, and is Better than raw biomass increase, I see why this doesn't bother you, but I do hold that position.

This is seemingly spoken from an ignorant and insulated position. The victims of invasion don't get to decide whether or not they live on a war front, nor do the countless skilled and creative individuals losing their entire careers almost overnight.

By the way it's class war you're talking about, not culture war.

We have chatbots in a sidebar that will just generate code for you or, more helpfully, answer your questions. We also have inline LLM code completion, which I've turned off completely because they're incredibly noisy.

What I want is something between those. My ideal use of LLMs while coding would be, i start writing a function and need to act on some data. I don't know what method to use, maybe I'm in an unfamiliar language/framework and don't know what my options are. I want the AI to explain what methods I can call to do X in this specific place, no more, no less. It would need to know what outcome I want, which would be hard to do without jumping out of the code and typing into the chat, but I basically want it to function like Intellisense on steroids. Something that doesn't break my focus.

Current LLMs are anti-flow. For me, that's poison.

Low-density sprawl in the American style is impossible without cars. Streetcar suburbs could exist but those are necessarily more concentrated and again need less road coverage.

Nor can you say the sprawl is what people "actively want" when it's illegal to build to any other pattern in the vast majority of the country.