bob001

Have the AI find the slow parts of your code. Then have it find libraries that do that slow part fast (they're almost certainly in Rust/C++) since thats low hanging fruit. Then have it re-write any remaining slow parts in Rust with Py03. Eventually that hits a limit but hopefully by then you understand Rust enough or it's fast enough to not matter.

Are you arguing that JIT Python or GraalPy will be as performant in a reasonable time as Python on top of those C++/Rust libraries? If not then I don't think it matters since unless you are claiming that all the existing C++/Rust libraries can be re-written in reasonable time and with the same performance. Keep in mind that many of these libraries are using low level tricks to optimize performance. Python is the UI and while the UI is important in the end it's just the UI.

CICD and iterative development and agile work because interactive building leads to better product. Otherwise we'd all build perfect software using waterfall methodologies and release only once a year. If implementation is cheap then you implement, review and then re-implement. Not even iterate in the extreme case. Throw it away if needed and start from scratch if needed.

Specification is hard because you are trying to predict a future state in a vacuum. You need to do that because creating the product is very expensive coding wise. If instead you could instantly build to your current specification then you could iterate on the specification against a real product. Even if all that code is thrown out the end result would be a better specification.

That's an interesting analogy. My gut sense is that theoretical mathematics requires a high level of intelligence versus more grounded domains. That may imply that deficiency in grounding can be made up for with intelligence and basically reverse engineering the gaps in grounding from first principles/limited grounding. The ultimate question would then be what is the tradeoffs between grounding and raw intelligence for the same outcome.

I didn't make the analogy to railroads. I'm just pointing out that its a terrible one if you want to use it to argue against AI.

To me that's not sustainable. It just brings in outside workers, distorts the economy in bad way for locals through increased costs, distorts their daily life in a bad way and then it all goes away leaving a void in its wake. Like the olympics.

> like a evil monster.

I tend to like not fearing starvation every year, not fearing freezing to death every year and not having the vast majority of my kids die. Industrialization led to all that.

City taxes don't fix a broken economic flywheel. State taxes go to others and also don't fix it. You need a functional economy with jobs, income, spending and all that jazz. A small amount of taxes with no second order benefits is worth relatively little.

> Do you have an encyclopedic knowledge of which terms are regulated and which ones aren't?

The solution is to ensure all common terms people expect in a daily shopping are covered. Thus why "beef patty" was covered. Sounds like you agree with the government on this one. Not covering it would make it confusing for people who would then need to keep track of which common terms are covered and which are not. Its a bit silly at times but as you noted yourself the alternative is even worse.

Some people know how to look up GDP per capita numbers.

> YCombinator and HN would run a "Slit your mommas throat as a service" if they though there were hockey stick growth profit.

While saying they're making the world a better place in the process. At least Wall Street sharks tend to be honest about their motivations and lack of giving a shit about you.

It used to be that living next to an airport was hell due to noise even without supersonic jets. Then they regulated noise levels and magically airplane companies started to find ways to mitigate noise levels. Such a coincidence that suddenly innovation just happened then and not ealirer. Who can guess why.

Just like Putin had Europe's best interest in mind regarding natural gas. At this point it's not a question of if Europe will become a puppet state but whose puppet state.