wizzwizz4

@davidrevoy @ToonLink This, too, will pass. Internet commenters have always been Like This™; it is wise not to heed them so much.

I'm a fairly prolific internet commenter, but many of these people spend entirely too much time writing posts online, and not enough trying to understand the world. Their opinions are superficial, and widely disseminated.

When they make specific criticisms, saying this or that feature "looks AI", that's most likely a post-hoc rationalisation of their gut instincts.

@mo The things you're glossing over are the reasons things don't work that way. Most of the issues are just "we don't know how to" and "there's no political will", but there are a few genuinely-difficult challenges here.

High-density land use requires you to remove what's currently on that land, for the whole time you're constructing high-density buildings (or undepleted soil, or whatever), which requires relocating whatever's there (at least temporarily). This precludes naïve allocation.

1/2

@mo To take a pre-modern perspective: Westphalian sovereignty, which is in part a defence against colonialism and territorial war.

Who defines "better"? How do you get more resources? especially land, which is probably being used by someone else, but needs to be adjacent to your existing land, for practical reasons. Why are you in control of this service, anyway? (Because at that kind of scale, the vast majority of the work was not done by you.) These questions rarely have good answers.

@mo Unfortunately, it's a David Tolnay project. I think there's some kind of "no nice things" conservation law in software, at the moment.