So totally uninteresting. There is no "being a _" experience when "you" are a word calculator. Thinking that there is or that there is something useful there is a category error.
He has not, and it isn't the right framing. In this telling he has also "erased the stain" on many crimes. We will see how long that whitewashing lasts.
ADRs are similar, yet the important point is not the format of the design log entry, but it's usage with AI.
with design log, we ask the AI to create the ADR or log entry, but unlike ADR we
1. require the AI to ask question and we answer.
2. require the AI to update the design log after implementation with any drift from the original design.
Both of the above help to make the AI more precise and prevent context drift.
City Journal is a right wing rag whose opinions represent propaganda. There is one correct point that the 2019 law eliminating rent increases tied to capital improvements is broken. But its other points are simply not correct. Vouchers are not a like for like replacement for stabilization. Like work and other gates applied to SNAP and similar programs, they are fundamentally broken and inhumane.
The article makes a whole bunch of points - the main one being that rent control is not a good way to address expensive housing. Are they wrong about other things besides your somewhat beside the point example? Are they wrong that "The city now has nearly 50,000 empty units"?
The fact is a fact, their diagnosis and narrative is fantasy. A fair number of the stabilized empty apartments are due to the specific points in the 2019 law that too greatly impacted the economics of stabilized apartments. Prior to the 2019 law, it was economic to operate stabilized units, but too easy to unstabilize them, hence the motivation for the law. Replacing those dynamics with section 8 is idiocy.
Your question about testability is justified. However, the considerations are not an empirical hypothesis in the scientific sense, but rather a philosophical argument. He is not claiming that the simulation hypothesis can be experimentally confirmed or refuted. His point is rather that even if one accepts the simulation hypothesis — even recursively — it does not result in a privileged beginning, a final observer, or ontological salvation. Change, emergence, and decay persist at every level. The question is therefore less whether we live in a simulation than what this assumption actually explains or changes.
It does, you make certain claims in your text, and the parent questions how to test you alternate theory against the perceived reality to see which of those two are true.
I understand why you consider his question relevant. At the same time, it is worth making a clear distinction: OP does not formulate an alternative empirical explanation of physical reality, but rather a philosophical reflection on the consequences of the simulation assumption itself. In this context, the question of experimental testability is generally meaningful, but it misses the point here because it presupposes a scientific hypothesis that OP does not even propose. His objection would be justified if OP were to claim truth in the scientific sense — but he does not.
reply