Minimum age of 130 should be fine.

I don’t recommend it.

Yeah, it ain’t kosher. 2 out of 3 Abrahamic religions say don’t do that, though I am of the view that any belief system that bans carnitas cannot be the whole truth.

“Market forces” in this case being oilgoplistic rent-seeking. Which, I suppose, is the result of market forces if you refuse to regulate that market to force competition.

The web is a layer on top of the internet. They’re not the same thing.

“High demand” meaning underprovisioning.

On a system I designed, we had a dedicated button, labeled Problem, to transmit log data to support. It was a popular feature.

This is the dawn of the new Chinese century.

Betting on a totalitarian kleptocracy saving the world is as unwise as betting in the 1980s that already overworked Japanese wage slaves could be overworked even further.

Chinese infrastructure and manufacturing lead is real.

And if you ignore the theory of comparative advantage, not only is it real, but it also matters. Otherwise, not.

I also run a consistent payment deficit with my barber. Should that be corrected?

But knowing what’s real and what’s bullshit is an absolutely essential prerequisite for progress.

No. I don’t think that either Trump’s idiots, nor the CCP, know more than I do.

the the talk of nationalistic races is just being used for investor buy in

Even more, it’s being used to milk the taxpayers for more subisidies that get translated (in a very lossy way) into more executive bonuses.

You see a new technology with flaws and just assume that those flaws will always be there and the technology will never progress.

Say you start with a prototype for a perpetual-motion machine. Then those flaws will always be there and the technology will never progress.

It is intrinsic in some technologies tthat they’re a dead end. That doesn’t mean all of them are, but some are just worthless crap and throwing more good money after bad isn’t going to change that.

I think the dream of AI is a servant (or slave) with unlimited potential that can solve, until now, unsolvable problems

Yeah, that’s the hype. The reality is that with current LLM tech, it’s a slightly more capable text-prediction algorithm.

You can’t even goose it.

And you’re too young to choose it.

That depends on the incentives. Society can change those to some extent.

“Natural gas.”

Oh, right, the benign-soundingmarketing term for methane.

they got what they wanted and their propaganda worked

So far.

Technically there should be a ratio of young to old to take care of all of the elderly

That’s a rule of thumb that assumes a lot of things about elderly people’s need for care, how much that’s funded by the young, productivity in how that care is provided, and a huge number of other variables.

Lower population will make resource allocation easier and improve quality of life, and obviously is necessary to prevent further environmental damage.

The environmental damage is more to do with bad choices about the mix of technology currently used to power the economy, and the poor ratio of GDP per unit of energy consumed. So I dispute that “obviously.”

in dire situations

That’s just repeating the assumption that’s being questioned.

Systems adapt. Extrapolation based on current state is often fallacious.

Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power

Implicit in that statement is a huge and largely unfounded assumption that there’s only one possible future state, and that it’s as you say it is.

And, even if it means that the powerful are forced to give up power, well, that’s happened before and it’s not impossible that it’ll happen again.