Also ex-Stripe. This suggests an opportunity to build an exchange that addresses these problems. Could one build an exchange with deliberate "turn-based" liquidity to avoid the problem of daily stock price distraction, for example? (This is hard because there will always be secondary markets, but presumably this is already the case.)
I thought about it for only a few seconds, but here is one way to do it. Have users self-report an "addiction factor", then fine the company based on the aggregate score using a progressive scale.
There is obviously a lot of detail to work out here-- which specific question do you ask users, who administers the survey, what function do you use scale the fines, etc. But this would force the companies to pay for the addiction externality without prescribing any specific feature changes they'd need to make.
Specifying the requirement in terms of measured impact is a good strategy because it motivates the app companies to do the research and find effective ways to address addiction, not just replace specific addictive UI patterns with different addictive UI patterns.
Building measurement into the law also produces a metric for how well the law is working and helps inform improvements to the law.
From an execution standpoint you can't work on experimental mobility due to path dependence. How are they going to convince municipal governments to open golf cart lanes? That would require solving two problems (autonomy and overcoming path dependence), and solving just one is hard enough. Once they saturate the market as it is with autonomous driving, then everything will change and opportunities to experiment will open up.
In the Midwest, golf carts are exactly what people use to get around in small towns. It's not unreasonable that neighborhoods might be closed to large vehicles and use other forms of transit within their boundaries.
I use an electric scooter to get around areas where a car would be inappropriate or undesired. I keep it in the back of my car always (along with my helmet, gloves and goggles) so that I can pull it out when needed.
Pretty convenient when I unexpectedly find myself needing to use a parking garage and such. The scooter can take me out of the parking garage and into the building with no issue. And then I can keep it with me in the building until it's time to get back to the car.
It's also probably cheaper than a golf cart - mine was just about $3,600 brand new. Though used carts are probably cheaper still, and there are also much cheaper scooters.
I actually used to use only an electric scooter for transit, but then I got hit by a pickup truck who didn't check the bike lane before turning. So I did driver's ed, got my license and leased a BEV.
Cool!
I thought this is more a thing of elderly care centers. I like the drivingfeeling of golf carts, so I would clearly do this as well if it would be allowed on public streets.
Though on most streets with all these SUV around, it will feel unsafe for me.
The state reduced regulation around vehicle registration so farmers can drive their SxSs and ATVs on the street (with some restrictions, obviously they don't go on the interstate) and then people in town registering their golf carts or whatever as second cars for around town stuff.
Oh golf carts were awesome in small lake communities in PA. Was much better than driving cars down those narrow roads and made much more sense for shorter distances. Plus kids got more freedom since we were allowed to drive the carts well before we could get drivers licenses (Might not be good to be as lax in a larger city though)
yeah, I can say that except for elder areas (not necessarily dedicated facilities, but there are things like "RV parks" which cater mostly to older folks but also families; they usually have 10mph speed limits), I've never seen someone driving a golf cart around town while I've lived in MI, OH, or PA.
I do see people driving horse-drawn carriages, ATVs (probably illegally), snowmobiles (legally in some parts of MI during Winter or condition-dependent), and riding mowers (probably illegally) in and around towns, though. Very rarely, I see someone driving an e-bike; this rareness is mostly because they aren't allowed on the sidewalks here and there's no bike lane, so you need to drive and signal like a car, which is pretty awkward given how many e-bikes don't even come with real brake lights (though many falsely advertise red rear running lights as a brake light, which'd be illegal to drive unless you hand-signal whenever you brake).
Coronado Island, near San Diego, California, for one.
Sun City, Arizona, though these are golf communities/mega-master-planned communities. Coronado is a better example of a mixed vehicle environment with golf carts bopping around all the time on the same streets.
Coronado isn't a good example. Or at least not one that scales, that's a VERY affluent neighborhood.
The golf cart isn't a replacement for a car, it's one you have on the side. I would argue that its partially because they're easier to park in a very touristy environment
Interesting that this seems like a slam-dunk argument for why reusable rockets and other improvements are practically impossible (e.g. "we might be able to achieve a microscopic improvement in efficiency or reliability, but to make any game-changing improvements is not merely expensive; it's a physical impossibility"), and wouldn't matter in any case for structural reasons (e.g. "market inelasticity (cutting launch cost in half wouldn't make much of a difference)", yet in the fifteen years since it was written launch costs have fallen to a third of what they were, continue to fall, and the number of payloads to orbit has gone up by an order of magnitude or more (so much for "market inelasticity").
To be intellectually honest about it, you have to answer a bunch of questions:
1. Awful compared to what?
2. Was there an equivalent transfer outside America?
3. What is the cause? What ratio rent-seeking/shady activity vs a consequence of natural forces (e.g. technological change)
Azure revenue is growing at 39% year over year. If Microsoft can sustain this growth, in four years Azure will be ~3.73x its current size. This is of course very difficult, but you really don’t need a deus ex machina to hit 4x growth under your assumptions.
The issue in the late-90s was all the investment created a lot of real revenue for telecoms and other companies. Even though there were a lot of shenanigans with revenue, a lot of real money was spent on fiber and tech generally.
But the real money was investment that didn’t see a return for the investor. The investments needed to have higher final consumption (such as through better productivity or through displacing other costs) to pay back the investment.
I've recently switched to Claude for chat. GPT 5.2 feels very engagement-maxxed for me, like I'm reading a bad LinkedIn post. Claude does a tiny bit of this too, but an order of magnitude less in my experience. I never thought I'd switch from ChatGPT, but there is only so much "here's the brutal truth, it's not x it's y" I can take.
GPT likes to argue, and most of its arguments are straw man arguments, usually conflating priors. It's ... exhausting; akin to arguing on the internet. (What am I even saying, here!?) Claude's a lot less of that. I don't know if tracks discussion/conversation better; but, for damn sure, it's got way less verbal diarrhea than GPT.
Yes, GPT5-series thinking models are extremely pedantic and tedious. Any conversation with them is derailed because they start nitpicking something random.
But Codex/5.2 was substantially more effective than Claude at debugging complex C++ bugs until around Fall, when I was writing a lot more code.
I find Gemini 3 useless. It has regressed on hallucinations from Gemini 2.5, to the point where its output is no better than a random token stream despite all its benchmark outperformance. I would use Gemini 2.5 to help write papers and all, can't see to use Gemini 3 for anything. Gemini CLI also is very non-compliant and crazy.
To me ChatGPT seems smarter and knows more. That’s why I use it. Even Claude rates gpt better for knowledge answers. Not sure if that itself is any indication. Claude seems superficial unless you hammer it to generate a good answer.
The vertical integration argument should apply to Grok. They have Tesla driving data (probably much more data than Waymo), Twitter data, plus Tesla/SpaceX manufacturing data. When/if Optimus starts on the production line, they'll have that data too. You could argue they haven't figured out how to take advantage of it, but the potential is definitely there.
Agreed. Should they achieve Google level integration, we will all make sure they are featured in our commentary. Their true potential is surely just around the corner...
"Tesla has more data than Waymo" is some of the lamest cope ever. Tesla does not have more video than Google! That's crazy! People who repeat this are crazy! If there was a massive flow of video from Tesla cars to Tesla HQ that would have observable side effects.
The key metric is more unusual situations. That scales with miles driven, not gigabytes. With onboard inference the car simply logs anything 'unusual' (low confidence) to selectively upload those needle-in-a-haystack rare events.
I work for Microsoft/Azure and my incentives are (roughly in descending order): minimize large/long outages, ship lots of stuff (with some concern for customer utility, but not too much), don't get yelled at for missing mandated work (security, compliance, etc.) I'd love to improve product quality, but incentives for that are negative. We're running a tight ship, and every second I spend on quality is a second I don't spend on the priorities above. Since there isn't any slack in the system, that means my performance assessment will drop, which I obviously don't want. Multiply that by 200k employees, and you get the current state of quality across the whole product portfolio.
My experience in the Teams org is the same. It's all about security, compliance, and recently AI. Fixing bugs and similar "non-flashy" work is a sure way of postponing one's promotion indefinitely.
I still don’t understand why people oppose that rather than enthusiastically desire it. The end state you’re describing is the culmination of the enlightenment project. Automating labor is the point! Then you can paint, or play chess, or eat amazing food, or do whatever you want. Work isn’t the end, it’s the means. Products and services is the end. If we can achieve the end via technology, who cares about the work?
That automation will be owned by a few and they're known for avoiding taxes not supporting something like a UBI. The masses a mostly likely to be kept busy watching propaganda on Tiktok not painting.
Food continues to go downhill the more agritech progresses and the planets population grows. Proteins are replaced by carbs with savoury flavouring, fats are replaced by thickeners etc. Eating good food like a good cut of steak requires out bidding other people which requires income.
Because in the world people currently live in, a small class of people own the means of production and the land you stand on, and everyone else has to have a job to access all of the necessities to live. Eliminating jobs means, quite literally, eliminating people's livelihood.
And that same class of people who own everything would rather kill everyone else and also destroy the planet than give up their position or allow any of the socioeconomic changes necessary to change the distribution of wealth.
Yes work is the means, the means to earn an income. Do you live in a country that has a big enough social safety net that you trust it to provide you the necessary income and healthcare so that you can just paint and play chess all day? I certainly don't... I live in the U.S.A :-/
There's always two sides to a coin right? While everything you said is true, I think that there's a pattern people are generally aware of in this world. Things that don't serve a purpose, vanish.
We see it in worker replacement, in vestigial organic structures that shrink over millinea, and in the tools and objects we keep with us in our lives.
The question, once achieving this grandiose goal, is how long, and by what mechanism, will we continue to enjoy the fruits of our labor?
Perhaps there will be a time when we may enjoy this world without the pressure of being a cog within it, but ultimately this time may be short if we are able to manifest it at all.
The unease comes from the power we lose when we cease to be the means of production, and instead become a vestigial organ on a beast much more complex than ourselves.
We industrialized and a few at the top enjoyed a life of leisure while the rest of us worked in the new ways to build, operate, and do endless maintenance.
Any more room as part of the painting and chess class this time, or are we all maintenance again?
reply