Better than a new language for each task, like you have with Go (microservices) and Dart (GUI).

I'm using F# on a personal project and while it is a great language I think the syntax can be less readable than that of C#. C# code can contain a bit too much boilerplate keywords, but it has a clear structure. Lack of parenthesis in F# make it harder to grasp the structure of the code at a glance.

We do have evidence that when money is not a problem, we become less efficient. For example, monopolies or state run companies.

Just the first result from google: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/3/657

Another problem with UBI is that, if we want for UBI to cover basic costs of living, these expenses are actually quite big as UBI essentially would need to cover things like rent, food and health services. Otherwise we will still have plenty of homeless people with UBI.

This would probably be more useful to help you see what (and how) was written by LLMs. Not really to catch bad actors trying to hide LLM use.

2. WFH -> Less movement -> Decreased blood flow can contribute to the onset of tinnitus.

Long exposure to high volumes causes hearing damage. Many people set volume on headsets too high to hear better.

3. Many people are diagnosed with tinnitus every day, and some are bound to have it discovered after a vaccine shot. In the same way, some people will have tinnitus discovered after COVID. That doesn’t yet prove causation.

While I agree that consistency is hugely important, I have also seen a lot of cases where it made the UX worse. The reason is that, unfortunately, UX isn't so simple. There isn't a single UX rule that is always true. UX design rules (best practices, guidelines, or principles) are a good starting point, but in a lot of situations multiple rules are conflicting each other. UI/UX design is dealing with tradeoffs most of the time. Good designer will know when breaking a specific rule will actually improve the UX.

Consistency is very important, but sometimes a custom UI element will be the best tool for the job. For example, imagine UI for seat selection in a movie theater ticket booking app. A consistent design would mean using standard controls users are already familiar with, but no standard control will provide high quality UX in this situation (not without heavy modifications).

But I still I agree with you that a lot of bad UX is due to inconsistency. There needs to be a good reason each time consistency broken and often it is broken for the wrong reasons.

I should have added "usually". On average when something is designed by a committee the effect is like this, but not always. You don't have to take my word for it [1]. That kind of outcome is not always guaranteed and the result can be good in some cases. In same way, an AI generated content can also sometimes have character.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

Similar thing happens when something is designed by a committee. Good for an average use, but not really great for anything specific.

Ask it to analyze and explain the code to you.

Oh, I despise this tactic so much. It means the company has known from the start that they can't offer it for free in the long term, but decided to subsidize it in order to gain a dominant position and get rid of competition. This breaks the conditions needed for a free market dynamics to work. In other words, they win market share for reasons other than efficiency, quality, or innovation. That's why some forms of government subsidies are prohibited under certain agreements, for example. Some multinational corporations have annual revenues larger than the GDP of many countries and can easily subsidize negative pricing for years to undercut competitors, consolidate market share, and ultimately gain monopoly power.

Also, the company has hinted false promises to the customer, as it signals that they have developed a business model where they can offer something for free. For example a two-sided marketplace where one side gets something for free to attract users and the other side pays (as it profits form these users). Users can't know something isn't sustainable unless the company explicitly states it in some way (e.g. this is a limited time offer).

So from the user's perspective, this is a bait-and-switch tactic, where the company has used a free offer in order to manipulate the market.

[1] https://github.com/nietras/Sep

For web small binary size is really important. Frameworks like Flutter, Blazor WASM produce big binaries which limits their usability on the web.

JS/TS complicates runtime type safety, and it's performance makes it not suitable for everything (multithreading, control over memory management, GC etc.)

I wonder how much/if no GC hurts productivity.

It looks like Coi has potential to be used for web, server and cross-platform desktop.

Since the intermediate step is C++ I have a question what this means for hot-reload (does that make it impossible to implement)?

Aren't risks similar when opening any untrusted web page in a browser?

The only difference is that browser sandbox and exploit mitigations are probably better than that of a PDF viewer.