Until climate plans align with short-term personal incentives, I don't see how there's going to be any serious persistent fight against climate change.
People might feel benevolent one day and do something good, but the next day when they are faced with a problem and the environment is a convenient trash can or resource bin, they'll go right back to those bad habits.
The only way things will change is if everyone's life gets made miserable by the effects.
Generally speaking, with humans there's more guardrails & responsibility around letting someone run while in an organization.
Even if you have a very smart new hire, it would be irresponsible/reckless as a manager to just give them all the production keys after a once-over and say "here's some tasks I want done, I'll check back at the end of the day when I come back".
If something bad happened, no doubt upper management would blame the human(s) and lecture about risk.
AI is a wonderful tool, but that's why giving an AI coding tool the keys and terminal powers and telling it go do stuff while I grab lunch is kind of scary. Seems like living a few steps away from the edge of a fuck-up. So yeah... there needs to be enforceable guardrails and fail-safes outside of the context / agent.
What I have learned from U.S. union interactions is that people who profit from bureaucracy love adding more bureaucracy to the system.
The "boxing match" analogy is reflective of the "us against them" power struggle between those trying to leverage their own hand at the expense of someone else in the U.S. corporate-union world.
This is contrasting to the concepts in Europe of labor stakeholders having a roundtable and coming to compromise as a group effort... not that it's perfect, just a different system.
The "opinions" part is true, and has implications on whoever is paying for the software and whoever is maintaining it (with their own opinions, of course).
A company/client will often make decisions based on "opinions" too. "We need a website, what should we use to make it?" It's a bit of a blank canvas situation at first where a developer/engineer could come in and say "We should do it X way with Y libraries because <some opinion on why it's the best stack>". Devs could have totally different takes on the same canvas by a matter of opinion.
If I were to ask people "What type of car should I buy?", I would likely get a whole variety of answers from hybrids to SUVs to European and Japanese cars based on who I asked and what their own preferences and tendencies are. I may end up happy or I may end up unhappy depending on which opinion I'm swayed by and how much rigor I put into investigating the different opinions.
Software can be very similar when people providing the "opinions" are caught up in looking to use specific tools over trying to figure out an appropriate solution. When developers/engineers/designers/managers immediate choose tools as a blanket solution over understanding the scope and use-case for context, it's a sign to heavily question the authority of their opinions.
What I like about forums like Lobster.rs and HN is they are easier to understand and replicate without too much front-end over-complication.
I'm one of those people that would rather start from a simpler base and iterate on it than start with a ton of components and get confused trying to figure out how they all fit together.
People might feel benevolent one day and do something good, but the next day when they are faced with a problem and the environment is a convenient trash can or resource bin, they'll go right back to those bad habits.
The only way things will change is if everyone's life gets made miserable by the effects.