One possible argument in favour of what happened here:
If you wanted to implement a package manager in the build system and keep it in the compiler, what abstraction for it would you provide between the compiler and the build system? This probably affects how you design the import system, and some other fundamental parts of your language. Those are important to get right, and probably hard you change. If you start by tightly coupling the package management and the compiler, it could be easier to design that by starting with the programmer experience you want and working backwards. Then you can change the implementation later, affecting fewer users.
I'm thinking specifically of Python here, where the import system is crazily complicated and warty, partly to accommodate all the varied ways package management was done. This compares to Go where there is a comparatively neat and small syntax for imports and the like, because they were designed with package management in mind from the start. (Not that I agree with all its design decisions.)
This rests on a lot of assumptions that the published figures for "planned" datacentres, "committed" AI spend, etc. are irreversible. I suspect that at least some of it is possible to back out of.
The bureaucracy isn't trying to be utilitarian, it's trying to be democratic, and the people don't want utilitarianism. No politician wants to be the one who removed the red tape that would've stopped the reckless professor from poisoning all those children with his botched clinical trial.
I've had a Discord account for 10 years. They seem to assume all discord users are at least teenagers, so surely they can't think I was 8 when I created the account. So can't I have the "full" experience automatically?
> If somebody doesn't know what double parking is - it's when cars parallel park beside one another, implicitly on the road, making it difficult to see what's beyond them
I don't know about you but here in the UK, close parallel parking is normal and expected, and I was taught to avoid trying to cross in the gap between two parked cars, and to be extra careful if I was going to. In this scenario some blame might lie with the driver for going too fast, but I would certainly also blame the child (or their parent) for stepping far into the road without looking.
Is it at all realistic to expect the stable and/or fiscally conservative countries to accept the high bond yields imposed by the more fiscally loose or perceived-risky countries? Could this ever happen without the EU centralising more control over fiscal policy?
I think the policy Harris is referring to is based on the _risk_ of something like this - it is easy to imagine wireless devices being vulnerable and enabling this capability - rather than being based on definitive existence of this capability.
> folks still win the lottery, and you’re more likely to get struck by lightning than win the powerball jackpot
I'm more likely to get struck by lightning than win the lottery, sure. But it's much more likely that someone wins the lottery this week (~100% in fact) than that someone gets struck by lightning this week.
Edit: my point about independence of events still stands, but it turns out people get struck by lightning amazingly often. The chance of someone in the world getting struck by lightning this week seems to be about 99%!
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/pxeger; my proof: https://keybase.io/pxeger/sigs/pWFo0gTe2jOWx8j82aJ_hhdt2wU97tpY-l0AzxVfZFw ]