The first half of your comment is unnecessarily aggressive and dismissive to op.

Okay

At this point, or perhaps not too far off it's like opting out of electricity, or the automobile.

Sure you can. But you're going to have a bad time.

And then the Amish see the world around them using electricity and cars and think, "Yep, I'm happier without that." And they're one of the few groups on earth with a growing population, so they're doing something right.

1. Your assumption that a growing population is the metric of success is questionable. A population that grows but is subject to famine, epidemics, and natural disasters because they haven’t developed the scientific and technological capacity to escape the existential risks of the physical world is living on borrowed time. Not saying I agree with that, and I would actually agree that there is merit to the Amish hypothesis that a certain existence is more compatible with individual and societal fulfillment. But there are obvious counterpoints.

2. The Amish are not a good example because AI will confer an advantage to those that control access to it that has never existed.

>Your assumption that a growing population is the metric of success is questionable.

It's a better measure than GDP/S&P/401(k) line-go-up especially [re: America] when the native Euro-based population has been aging and dropping for decades, once you strip away all the post Hart-Cellar immigrant lineages.

What are hart-cellar immigrant lineages? And why is that in anyway relevant?

Let’s play a thought experiment.

Let’s say we have a million people that are so technically sophisticated that they are a space faring civilization capable of seeding the universe with living ecosystems capable of perpetuating life and evolutionary processes. But they are entirely infertile and will never give birth to another individual of their species.

And we have another population that doubles every single year but is incapable of leaving their home planet.

Which one is more valuable?

It depends on what your measure of value is, but if it is to maximize the amount of life in the universe, then population growth is not the right metric, expansion of life through technological means is the more appropriate metric.

First time? You can choose between the $20 convenience fee or the $50 no-fee fee.

Not to mention losing load balancing and failover.

Failover can be done with something like keepalived. VRRP/CARP are a thing.

For LB you'll need something in front of your service to bounce connections around, which is replacing one point of failure (DNS) for another (HAproxy, IPVS). Though I guess you can run the LB stack on your app service servers.

And making TLS more difficult, especially for HA systems. Guess you would just need one cert for 127.0.0.1 for all local services.

What has /etc/hosts got to do with valid TLS certificates? I think that’s a non-sequitur.

You don't need to setup one cert for 127.0.0.1 as stated by the parent comment.

I don't think the author would dispute that. But the problem is the foot is bigger and the stepping is faster.

This is the exact article I thought of when I saw this headline. I'm surprised it's still around.

I'm seeing a lot more of those ai generated graphics which are shiny and flashy but ultimately say nothing.

The good people at qzzdfghjww company would NEVER sell a defective product.

Need an updated version of the skit. Oohhhh Claude says no....

And I feel like lab grown Velociraptor skeletons aren't going to fetch $10 million. Rarity and something new to study is part of the value.

Surely the rarity is partially due to the velociraptor skeleton cartel limiting the supply. And really, a velociraptor skeleton wasn't even a traditional engagement gift until they created the demand for it with that advertising campaign back in the day.

Yeah. Imagine how much you can make on live velociraptors.