marcosdumay

Every time somebody rewrote code in my company, my questions were more on the line of "why did you preserve all the known bugs and incoherences?"

The answer is always that the rewrite was bug-compatible on purpose, the bugs were to be fixed later on the more tractable system. Every time development was abandoned right away, because there was no gain in using the new system.

> thousand-fold productivity increase

The engineer still spent a week there.

Managing a vendor relationship is the act of distributing license usage through your people, reviewing contracts, having somebody that knows when and where you have to send money so that the software keeps working, and making sure you are not doing something against the contract.

With Microsoft that takes several people working full time. Corporations tend to not want more of those relationships to manage.

Pilots are nothing near powerful enough to seek any rent on that situation.

Instead, they are the weakest part on that market.

They fine tune for that, they don't ensure anything.

(Or at least they used to, I think they changed everything recently, but I've mostly stopped using them.)

"The floor also features the Hologram Theater, where Sam Walton himself shares his story"

I'm wondering if the show writers used it as a reference.

Hum... It can be your assumption, but most countries do not fulfill it.

Detention in particular is a violation of human rights, with an exception to strictly for the time it takes for the next flight to take off.

I guess when you have secret courts, it's something that starts to make sense.

I still can't understand how a government can work with some courts where everything is secret. That's something almost literally lifted out of The Process, but the Kafka book is an allegory for a kind of madness, not something that works.

A lot of them are Siemens and GE, but I haven't look recently on how the market is going.

Nobody is even trying to claim that.

There are many people complaining that the supreme court should have said which of his crimes this is about, but his allies are not even trying to defend him.

You can use your focus to verify it.

If you add enough batteries, nuclear comes back the original economics.

I'm not sure the "enough batteries" part is a good investment, and the original economics is already not competitive with renewables. But maybe after you add in long term storage and the possibility of black swan risks it can make sense to subsidize a bit of other kinds of power on some regions.

People were predicting that solar would eventually take over everything in the 19th century.

It got out of the spot for a few decades when everybody started to be on nuclear power, but by the 1980s it was obvious nuclear wouldn't get there.

> Is there an "Ormouz of solar" scenario?

Yes. At some point somebody will weaponize smart inverters.

It's avoidable if people suddenly decide to not act stupidly. I classify that as unlikely. It's also fixable, just like the oil Hormuz.