I'd rather see unit tests as documentation.

The test can show intended use, show interesting corner cases, and I know it is up to date because it is constantly running and passing.

I think that is a huge underrated benefit of adding a lot more testing.

If I think a developer is going to ask a question of how something works, or about a corner case, isn't that deserving of a test, so they can just see proof of the answer to their question immediately rather than trying to re-derive it?

I think unit tests are documentation in the same way that a Dockerfile is... it's not. The tests don't paint the bigger picture, explain why, etc.

That said, if you pitched me something like a Jupyter notebook style doc where tests validating the claims of the documentation were inline, I'd totally buy into that.

You know what, you are right on the money with that. I think if you expand to include functional/smoke/e2e tests, that covers pretty much everything documentation is supposed to be.

Just by running them you can measure if they are in or out of sync with the code (well, if they were written correctly).

LLMs are great at writing unit tests.

Heat sickness sucks, but you pull through even if the sustained temperature does not great things.

Heat stroke is a life-threatening medical emergency (e.g. call 911) when they body has gotten so hot that organ systems that are capable of regulating temperature start malfunctioning, and things can go downhill extremely quickly from that point.

There are plenty of other uses - knowing where to build stores to serve your target market, predicting possible pandemic vulnerabilities, etc.

And are crazy defensive at pretending it is somehow rational!

If you don't need the 1300 cash, or think that you could sell it in the future, you could also buy it rather than merely not selling it.

It's called the fallacy of sunk costs.

They're all objective, just different coordinate systems. There's nothing less objective about a different coordinate transform.

Is there some reason significant improvement on cooling and power generation to weight generation ratios is even remotely possible?

Better integration allows for a lot of potential improvements, so if the cooling and power and compute are tightly integrated and use structural materials it may be plausible.

Still not going to be cheaper, but if you get moderately optimistic it's cheap enough to maayyyybe start looking like a source of demand for starship if you can find suckers (government) to pay 10x the price per compute.

> That works because the auditing the rich is very expensive

But it is "profitable".

It is one of the very few things the government does that generates short-term "profits" - every dollar spent auditing the rich and collecting from them generates more money than is spent, and we have never been close to break-even.

If you truly want to run the government like a business, increasing funding to IRS audits and collections is one of the hallmarks of what you would do.

EDIT: a lot of what the government does, and it should be everything the government does, is profitable, but it's more like "we spend this money, it increases GDP on some timescale, and then we get more taxes from it". This is short-term because it is more direct. The IRS audits bring in more tax revenue quite directly.

There is a huge gradation of "how wild".

Central park is way more wild than a playground, which is way more wild than a city street corner.

The Yosemite National Park front country is way more wild than Central Park.

The federally-protected wilderness areas, where it is illegal to use a chainsaw for trail management as that is not sufficiently wild, in the Sierra Nevadas are even more wild, but still have a ton of people, trails etc.

The Brooks Range in Alaska is yet even more wild - no/few trails, take a bush plane in/out, etc.

Allowing a bit more wilderness is always a utility - it doesn't have to be binary wild/not wild (and very little land habitable by humans has ever not been severely influenced by humans)