Looks like this whole post is an ad for someone's project. The links hardly have to do with the post.

Wise people plant trees whose shade they'll never stand in.

I'm not convinced he really believes that OpenAI is going to roll out AGI in the next ten years, but I'm completely sure he's determined that it's a good marketing strategy to make people believe that he believes it.

I do think that specific point is catering too much to sloppy get-it-done-fast-and-don't-think developers. It's true that they are Rust's most untapped demographic, and the language won't reach the pinnacle of mainstream usage without getting buy-in from that group, but I really think they'll be won over eventually by everything else the language and ecosystem offers, and .unwrap() won't be such an unreasonable price for them to pay in the long run.

You can't prove that Godzilla's bones aren't hollow ballast tanks that can be emptied and filled as needed.

Disclaimer that I have no experience with writing compilers myself, but conceptually I don't see any obvious reason that someone couldn't create a JIT compiler for Rust so that it can be treated like a scripting language and do rapid iteration...

Weird take on morality.

I'm eager to acknowledge the systemic challenges of being veg_n since those were barriers for me in the past myself. I'm privileged to not have those issues anymore, but I still recognize the premium that I pay to be veg_n (my partner and I refer to it as "the vegetarian tax").

I harbor no animosity towards people who can acknowledge the sustainability crisis of the meat industry but aren't in a position to personally separate from it. The expectation that I have for decent and informed people, in order from the bare minimum to the absolute most is:

1. Don't pointlessly disparage veg_ns or spread misinformed agrobusiness propaganda. This in fact takes negative effort.
2. Occasionally examine whether you have any opportunities to reduce your meat consumption.
3. Talk to people you personally know about the sustainability crisis and see if you can find others in your circle who are interested in reducing their meat consumption. Work together to figure out effective strategies for doing so in your situation.

You oppose veganism from a moral standpoint...? You think it's immoral to subsist without needlessly torturing animals, or is there some other agrobusiness propaganda wedged in your brain that you haven't taken the time to debunk yet?

The stakes for young people to vote have never been higher but I think too many of them are suffering from brain rot engineered by social media.

And money is the only cost that matters, right? Let's not be concerned about the material waste involved in the launch or the pollution that's building up in outer space with each failure.

This kind of business oriented mindset is why Boeing planes are falling out of the sky and dropping their bolts.

Also the cost being cited for those early space programs involved an immense amount of breakthrough R&D which the newer programs ought to be benefiting from; there's no reason to believe that a government program doing the same work as these private companies today would cost as much as they did in the early days. It's not even a meaningful quantitative comparison in the first place.

I intentionally avoided making any reference specifically to Down's syndrome because I've known people with Down's syndrome who are high functioning and independent, but I've also known people with Down's syndrome who can't get their own pants on without assistance (I mean this literally and objectively as a reference point for cognitive function, not as a joke).

So I'm not going to suggest that all people with Down's syndrome should be actively prevented from birthing children. But I think anyone with a hereditary disorder that severely affects quality of life should be carefully and empathetically counseled through the question of procreation with an honest discussion of the risks involved. Someone with high functioning Down's syndrome may be able to live a perfectly happy life without much assistance, but what kind of risk would they be putting on their prospective child who will have a high likelihood of also getting the syndrome and may have a much worse case of it?

I don't believe in forced sterilization or forced prevention, and I don't believe in selecting for genes based on race or "positive" qualities, so what I'm suggesting is not eugenics. It's simply encouraging people to consider the long term consequences of their decisions and evaluate the risks they are placing on other people (their prospective children) who cannot consent to being born under those risks.

As for individuals with cognitive faculties that are too limited to make any assessment about those risks, they will not be living independently, so I hope their caretaker would not put them in a situation where procreation is a concern to begin with.

And going back to the original matter of non-human animals, I stand by my point that those animals won't be burdened by the knowledge that they can no longer procreate so they won't have any long lasting trauma from the operation. That combined with the importance of reducing unhoused dog and cat populations (which are extremely difficult to control because of how quickly they reproduce) makes the value judgment on this matter a very easy one for me.