I would even argue, that a lot of AI services in the future will be close to free for the public. That is because in a lot of cases, the data received from user interactions is more valuable, than the data generated by the AI service.
Bug resolution time depends on how familiar a developer is with the system, how complex the issue is and how impactful the bug is. Not everything can be solved in 24 hours. Not everything has to be solved in 24 hours.
Saying that your developers will solve every problem in 24 hours seems like a toxic pr move.
I only tend to see inheritance in engines and libraries, where it makes sense to create more generic, reusable and composable code, since most of the functionality in these is defined by technical people.
It makes no sense to use inheritance in the business layer, because a single feature request can make a lot of the carefully crafted abstractions obsolete.
I am not saying, that the simulating world has no constraints. Only that there is no reason for the constraints present in the simulation to perfectly mimic the real world.
I would argue, that a perfect simulation is most of the time less efficient than a simulation with very specific parameters. For example, humans studying game theory with artificial agents create very specific environments.
There are also plenty of reasons to run a simulation on a slower tick rate than a real world. For science, we simulated a black hole, which required hundreds of hours to simulate a single frame. For entertainment, we made movies, for which it is not uncommon to require thousand hours of cpu time just to render a single minute.
The stacking problem can be easily solved by applying the concept of entropy to it. You can't expect to receive the same amount of energy you put into a system. Therefor a simulation can't perfectly simulate the world running the simulation. Which means, that at the end of every single simulation chain exists a simulation not yet capable of generating a simulation. But this statement provides us no more information about the relationship between the simulator and the simulation.
We can introduce whatever constraints or assumptions we want. It makes no difference. My argument was against the statement, that one can say something is more likely or more reasonable, when debating if we are living a simulation. One can't.
You assume, that time has to pass at the same speed in the simulation as in the simulating world. Even with our current computing power we could simulate very complex scenarios, if we spend a year of continuous computing on a nanosecond of said scenario.
You assume, that the simulating world is bound by the same restrictions as the simulation. Maybe the difference between our simulated world and the real world is the same like the difference between minecraft and our world.
We have trouble to predict, what the world will look like in a hundred years. And we have thousands of years of data on both humanity and our world. What hope do we have to state even one true fact about a world, that is simulating ours?
The problem is that there are no qualities, that distinguish a simulation from reality. For all we know, we might as well be living in the worst simulation with unrealistic physics and poor graphics, which was made by a regular student on a weekend, who received a C- for effort.
If the simulation is already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particles. With access to all the particles in the universe humanity could easily simulate every single particle in a smaller universe at a high tick rate. A simulated humanity could even easily simulate every particle in a bigger universe, if we remove the requirement to render the world at a high tick rate.