anbende

The primary issue with this is the way shares and equity work. Elon Musk is a trillionaire on paper. He pays himself famously little.

That net worth is, under our current system, tightly linked with his interest and control in his various enterprises.

He can borrow against it which gets around taxes and that should probably be addressed, but he like the hypothetical fresh billionaire startup founder don’t have that money. And the mega rich on paper can’t access more than a small percentage of that money without reducing their control of the company they built or are building.

Ideas like a wealth tax, or the new sovereign fund paid into by an equities tax or grant are all interesting, but they are all more complicated on the ground than “wouldn’t $100m be motivating enough?”

FWIW, I think that some sort of public endowment and/or sponsored healthcare, education and safety net and/or tax or management of hyper wealth is one of the problems of our age.

But part of that problem is that it’s not clear how to do that in a way that is workable in an increasingly multipolar world of tech and soon healthcare giants that are as powerful as small but growing nation states. Economically and in some cases militarily linked to great powers.

A generous read of this comment might be that you did catch it internally in testing AFTER it shipped but shrugged it off as something you'd patch in the next release in a week or two. Is that what you meant here?

Or that it was caught but didn't surface fully before release?

A helpful governance policy here might be that anything that mutates user content without opt-in consent requires a distinct sign-off or a double sign-off. If the goal is to prevent this from happening in future.

Well, if you personally were building von Neumann machines do any purpose in the solar system, would YOU be interested in sending some to neighboring systems knowing that you could conceivably get a response in your lifetime.

Would you be at all interested in expanding that project to outlast you?

And even if you personally wouldn’t be so inclined, surely you know or have met people who might?

Once you have the self replication, expanding scope may just be additional code…

Hi there. Right now they are going to a separate git repo, yes. Like this:

local-governor/epics/e-epics/e014-clinical-domain-model/runs/run-e014-01-ops-catalog-20260302-173907-244c82

- Attempts

+ Steps

  - Step 1

  - Step 2

  - ...

  - Step 13

job_def.yaml

job_instance.json

changes_final.patch

run_report.md

improvement_suggestions.md

local-governor is my store for epics, specs, run records, schemas, contracts, etc. No logic, just files. I want all this stuff in a DB, but it's easier to just drop a file path into my spec runner or into a chat window (vscode chat or cli tool), but I'm tinkering with an alt version on a cloud DB that just projects to local files... shrug. I spend about as much time on tooling as actual features :)

Here’s how I do the same thing, just with a slightly different wrapper: I’m running my own stepwise runtime where agents are plugged into defined slots.

I’ll usually work out the big decisions in a chat pane (sometimes a couple panes) until I’ve got a solid foundation: general guidelines, contracts, schemas, and a deterministic spec that’s clear enough to execute without interpretation.

From there, the runtime runs a job. My current code-gen flow looks like this: 1. Sync the current build map + policies into CLAUDE|COPILOT.md 2. Create a fresh feature branch 3. Run an agent in “dangerous mode,” but restricted to that branch (and explicitly no git commands) 4. Run the same agent again—or a different one—another 1–2 times to catch drift, mistakes, or missed edge cases 5. Finish with a run report (a simple model pass over the spec + the patch) and keep all intermediate outputs inspectable

And at the end, I include a final step that says: “Inspect the whole run and suggest improvements to COPILOT.md or the spec runner package.” That recommendation shows up in the report, so the system gets a little better each iteration instead of just producing code.

I keep tweaking the spec format, agent.md instructions and job steps so my velocity improves over time.

--- To answer the original article's question. I keep all the run records including the llm reasoning and output in the run record in a separate store, but it could be in repo also. I just have too many repos and want it all in one place.

I think this one way of looking at what your parent was describing.

They weren’t just saying ‘AI writes the boilerplate for me.’ They were saying: once you’ve written the same glue the 3rd, 4th, 5th time, you can start folding that pattern into your own custom dev tooling.

AI not as a boilerplate writer but as an assistant to build out personal scaffolding toolset quickly and organically. Or maybe you think that should be more systemized and less personal?

I had a very similar experience, watching it at Japanese camp when I was about 8. I had recurring dreams of a ship going down into a poison jungle for many years and vague memories of this movie.

I found it again when mail order Netflix first came out in my early 20s. It was like rediscovering my childhood and completing a character arc.

My (not a lawyer) understanding is "no", because Microsoft is not administering the model (making available the chatbot and history logging), not retaining chats (typically, unless you configure it specifically to do this), and any logs or history are only retained on the customer's servers or tenant.

Accessing information on a customer's server or tenant (I have been assured) would require a court order for the customer directly.

But... as an 365 E5 user with an Azure account using the 4o through Foundry... I am much more nervous than I ever have been.

Yes this is a reasonable way to misunderstand given the way we refer to “hard sciences” and “soft sciences”, but it does not map to the terms “hard scifi” and “soft scifi” in common usage.

It’s not exactly about rules consistency either as stated by the GP, though that’s part of it. It’s more about strong consistent application of scientific principles even theoretical or untested principles.

This is in contrast to futuristic fantasy with no real focus on the science. But futuristic or space fantasy can be very consistent just like magical systems in fantasy can be very consistent. Hard scifi has to be constrained by plausible consistent science and that science is typically a main character in the story, or even THE main character.

You’re getting downvoted because chess is 2D, not 3D. The pieces only move on a flat plane. 3D chess exists and pieces move up and down as well.

Research anecdote here. I’m a psychologist in a different area and a friend who did his PhD in cocaine research with rats told me this.

Addiction is highly dependent on the immediacy of the drug’s effect on the brain. For this reason, people who smoke cocaine (directly or as crack) are highly likely to get addicted. It may be the majority. People who snort it are less likely to get addicted. And there are a lot of casual cocaine users (snorting) who do not develop a long term life altering addiction. I believe he (researcher friend) said it was 10-15% who go on to become addicted. Still substantial and dangerous but much less than smoking.

His research was looking at delayed onset of cocaine in rats after they pushed their cocaine lever. At longer delays more and more rats showed little interest.

This is part of the overall addiction picture. Decoupling drug use behaviors (smoking, snorting, and lever pressing) from noticeable drug onset prevents reinforcement of the behavior and makes addiction less likely, often much less.

This would explain why nicotine patches and gum would potentially be much less addictive than cigarettes.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it's called the metric system because the values were derived from the meter. Decimal time has nothing to do with the meter, and "decimal" refers to it being base 10.

If we’re talking about clarity I think there’s some merit to the claim. It has tense markers that English lacks which buys you information in the conjugation about tense, gender and speaker. And unlike other Latin languages you aren’t able to drop the subject and just rely on the verb to convey it which forces clarity one could argue. You get the best of both worlds for clarity though the worst of both worlds for conjugation complexity and overall verboseness.

At least that’s my attempt to defend the GP’s statement.