If a sentence has multiple "valid" interpretations, then it doesn't matter what the "correct" interpretation is. If someone says that a sentence is confusing or hard to read, you 100% must believe them and fix it. Dismissing concerns about clarity and ambiguity as merely "pedantic" is one reason why people fail to develop written communication skills. I have been burned many, many times in my career by making charitable assumptions about another engineer's ambiguous language, only to realize much later, after significant cost has been paid, that they had a completely different (and often wrong) idea.

Teaching people to be better writers is a hill I will gladly die on. I don't care if you defend your point or not, just read my comment and try to understand why someone would care deeply about this sort of thing.

In this case I asked a yes or no question because I simply wanted to clarify and understand the nuance of your position. You shouldn't always assume that every person responding to your comments is immediately trying to argue against you (although I'll admit this a fairly accurate heuristic for internet discussions in general).

Instead of answering with "Yes, (I believe) it is impossible" or "No, it is possible", you answered with the following:

"You can always present a case history of one".

Because I asked you a yes/no question, I am going to interpret your response as a framing of a yes/no answer. I interpreted your comment as: "(No), you (one) can always present a case history of one".

Hence my confusion: it sounded like you were holding both beliefs simultaneously: "Yes, natural monopolies are impossible, but there are counterexamples".

In the future please just answer the questions as they are asked.

> To become a monopoly, they need the collusion of government to outlaw competition.

To this day I've never found any good guidelines for flagging changes like this without resorting to widespread file duplication, abuse of OOP, or an ad-hoc versioning system. It comes as no surprise that nobody in my organization was willing to do this sort of work.

Those with wealth will tend to steer the economic system more towards their own interests in a runaway feedback loop, often in ways which create no overall net welfare for society.

I've been grappling with a lack of meaning in my software engineering job for over a decade now, well before the advent of AI. Working in a modern software organization means that most of your day-to-day effort isn't spent using your technical skills, but on navigating misaligned organizational structures in order to achieve even the smallest goal. The feedback loop is so drawn out that there is no feel-good dopamine rush at the end of a project, only relief that it no longer has to occupy space in your brain.

I'm driven by solving problems for others and seeing their lives improve as a result. But we're so disconnected from real users that it doesn't really make a difference if you reduce your product's crash rate from 2% to 1%; even with recognition ("You did good work", a pat on the back, a peer bonus, or maybe even a promotion), it just doesn't do it for me anymore, especially when any tangible positive outcome is completely hidden from me. I would rather have been ignorant to these problems and not suffered the stress in the first place.

Even when I try to help my fellow developers in a way where it's much easier to feel the impact, it's hard to make a case for a better engineering culture if means that everyone has to put in an epsilon of extra effort in a day and age where every team ascribes to a scarcity mindset. I actually believe I can have more impact building a medium-sized product by myself with the help of AI rather than fighting for scraps in a software organization which pushes and pulls randomly in all directions.

Over time, my tolerance for nonsense and systemic "injustice" (i.e. incentive misalignment) has effectively disappeared. Every time I rub against an unnecessary barrier that was put up by another person, intentionally or not, my motivation simply drops to zero. I constantly have to wear an emotional blanket to keep from feeling angry and frustrated, and it makes it hard to experience genuine emotional fulfillment in my life outside of work. I simply have no patience left to spend in my life outside of work, where it actually matters.

I 100% identify with this blog post. I feel more happiness taking a friend's kids to the climbing gym and listening to them tell me about their experience doing a difficult climb. I feel more happiness from mentoring a robotics team of goofy but driven teenagers. I feel more happiness when my writer friend tells me that she still uses a wooden tablet stand that I built every day. I want my life to feel like it's making a difference for other people in a way that is unique to my talents and skills.

Life is not an optimization puzzle where the goal is to maximize wealth, status, influence, or prestige. Yet it feels like that's really all that a corporate job can offer you these days.

Atypical, non-standard, or unconventional are more neutral in tone, so given your desire for a non-subjective word I'd recommend these instead.

My conclusion every time I've done this exercise is that you should only buy a house in the Bay if you have way more money than you know what to do with. The difference in opportunity cost is absolutely massive, on the order of half a million today-dollars or more for a 3-bedroom SFH. That's a huge price to pay for the "privileges" of homeownership.