You didn’t tell us when he asks if everything is OK. That is a large omission, and I hope you can update the original post with examples of what led up to the question being asked. Also, what is the setup there? Are you working at Subway making sandwiches? Do you have adjacent desks? Do you show up to work with black eyes? We are left wondering what’s up.

Certainly anyone who repeatedly asks “Are you OK?” is exacerbating some issue, but I would be hesitant to offer any advice about what you ought to do without reading more details.

(In other words, the missing missing reasons applies here just as it did in the original scenario, for those who remember it.)

But that’s not what happened. If the lawyers are saying that some open source groups can’t work with open source groups in Russia, as Linus indicated, that doesn’t mean either group dislikes the other group. I don’t think this is a question of animosity.

It’s banning contributors but not contributions themselves. So there must be inconvenience but somewhat effective workarounds. That could be fun to see unfold.

Everyone else is wrong but you’re right? … It’s a cute idea.

Exactly. People do learn. That’s who we’re trying to reach.

What, so waiting until December would create more pressure? I can’t see how.

Sure sure, and the amount matters, right?

What would people recommend in the short run as an alternative?

It has to be there, because politics is connected with lawmaking, and open source software is dependent on laws.

A lot of people like to say that politics isn’t in their life or that they keep politics out of their life, but the reality is that’s just not true. The rules that govern society affect you, always, either with or without your input, either with or without your acknowledgment.

You’re probably trying to say that we should keep pointless politicking out of open source software, and I agree, but that’s going to come down to personal definitions of pointlessness.

I generally agree, and I also think that the spy agencies would assassinate him within a couple of days. There’s a bunch of men who have been running those groups for decades, and they don’t want to give up their power because some lunatic is making a power grab on the White House.

It’s interesting that you think the national guard would support him. I don’t think it’s as simple as that. We can be sure that most lifers in the military have considered what they would do if the unelected commander-in-chief gave an obviously unconstitutional order. It’s not just a hypothetical to them.

I don’t think people who think very much would bother to ask ChatGPT, unless they didn’t have any friends, because it’s quite obvious that relationship advice is delicate and you certainly want the advice giver to know something about your situation. You know, like your friends do, like computers don’t.

We don’t even have to look at the low quality advice, because there’s no way it would be informed advice.

That’s generally false. But even if it’s true, all the boss has to do is argue that medium-term profits will be generated by whatever policy they want to adopt. Since nobody knows the future, they might be right, and they’re legally rock solid.

In other words, the duty to increase value produces unfalsifiable policy claims. So it is meaningless.

The Pirate Bay will always be with us.

The article did mention a fundamental obstacle. It said quite clearly that we would run out of resources before we had enough computing power. I suppose you could counter that by arguing that we could discover magic, or magical technology, or a lot of new resources through space exploration.

Of course things get more efficient. But in the past few decades they’ve gotten efficient in predictable, and mostly predicted, ways. It’s certainly possible that totally unexpected things can happen. I could win the lottery next week. Is that the standard? Are you pushing the stance that says AGI is somewhat less likely than winning the lottery or getting struck by lightning, but by golly it’s more than zero, how dare you suggest that it’s anywhere close to zero?

I think the details matter a lot. If I’m an active contributor to a site and I get a bait and switch, then I’m probably going to leave the site permanently. I try to keep track of what’s happening to make that less likely.

If you’re setting up a service and you realize it doesn’t scale up well, I think you should try to state your roadmap on your site somewhere, so the users can expect changes that might happen. If people go in expecting that you might need to monetize in certain ways, they won’t be disappointed when you do. Or rather, they might be slightly disappointed but they’ll understand.

The park is my first location.

Please don’t be a hero. Work your 40 hours and then stop. You didn’t clarify, but I’m slightly worried that you want to be more connected which might lead you to increase your workload or working hours, and that will make your job less sustainable in the long run, and we really want people like you to stick around for many years to come.

Who told you that? Why do you believe it? Where and when are you citing as the best so far?

You have to make some assumptions for your question to make sense. If all you want is lines on a map, that could in theory happen tomorrow. Various political leaders could agree to it. But lines on maps don’t change what’s happening on the ground.

So I think the short answer to your question is, it might look exactly like today. But if you want to add in some details to your hypothetical, if you want to establish that there are peacekeeping forces or that various factions are disarmed, or some means of reducing violence and increasing human aid, that would continue in the medium and long term, then you might have an interesting question. The problem is that until you specify those details there’s no way to answer the question you’re asking, because everything depends on the structure of the country.