I have been having great luck with waypipe (gitlab) as an X11 forwarding alternative (OS X to Ubuntu 24.04). The setup was relatively painless and it 'just worked.' while this might not suit your needs for other reasons I was pleasantly surprised.
This article is pretty frustrating as it doesn't introduce rowan or green trees and I had to read a bit to know you were even talking about a rust lib. Beyond that I don't know if I ever encountered a modern syntax tree lib that didn't have at least a pointer to the beginning and end of the token lexed at the leaf node level. If you don't have this error reporting becomes either awkward or complicated for the developer or the end user.
The health insurance is the part that just is hard to relate to much of the world which is where the fear/sadness comes from. It is the undertone in any wealth discussion. So many people in the US see their family and friends get medically bankrupted for one reason or another and insurance being tied to employment makes everything awful.
The fact that you simply can't save enough to get medical care is foundationally depressing.
The only thing I find scary about the current AI is how many AI companies became completely untethered from basic ethical controls openly. There is no facade of decency and it seems like a lot of them are running from their own shadow. I feel like there is a middle ground that could have been taken to bring content experts in instead of looting the web the world has built.
I believe what the commenter is suggesting is that since this is supposed to be machine readable then why not start with a common format like JSON similar to how things like MCP serve what functions are available or an OpenAPI spec. Generate the JSON and serve that from the well known directory.
People serve plain JSON all the time. This proposed standard is essentially a structured file anyway.. why not YAML? Why not INI? Getting away from bespoke unicorn file formats has been good for everyone.
Maths can be super deterministic but often difficult to compute because of concepts like inferring by induction. I had to personally unlearn and rebase my understanding of math based in computation to 'get' pure maths. Another example is set building. You often don't need to compute the existence of members of sets in pure math you just need to agree that there are some members of a set that meet the criteria. How many or how many things that aren't in the set aren't meaningful often times to accept something and move on with the proof. From the computing perspective this can be difficult to put together.
From my perspective depending on where they want to develop it might be trivial to add something time consuming to a proposal such as eminent domain or easement reviews that will run out the shot clock and drown out reasonable questions by local governments. Local governance often is complicated by local (town), regional (county), and state level roles. Additionally depending on the area not all of these roles are even staffed by people working on it full-time.
This really isn't an all or nothing sort of situation. Many of the AI players have a proven record of simply not following existing norms. Until there is a consumer oriented player who is not presuming that training on my private data and ideas is permitted it only makes sense to do some stuff things locally. Beyond that many of the companies providing AI have either weird limits or limitations that interrupt me. I just know as an individual or a fledgling company I am simply not big enough to fight some of these players and win, and the compliance around companies running AI transparently is too new for me to rely on so the rules of engagement are all over the place. Also don't forget in a few years when the dust settles that company with that policy you like is highly likely to be consumed by a company who may not share the same ethics but your data is still held by them.
I would agree without even the caveat of the maintainer being busy. When a maintainer receives a massive changeset they have to then recover why the task was taken on in the first place and understand any decisions to get to the same outcome presented in the changeset provided. The more logical complexity that this change represents whether it is 3 lines or 3000 lines still needs to be understood by the reviewer as not breaking the rest of the system and equally can be 'massive.' The further you get from an N+1 change into a N+5 or N+6 change is where you get into situations where a N+3 change is flawed based on the rest of the system and invalidates large parts of the changeset, and that doesn't resolve all the issues or concerns.
I think a lot of people forget that changesets are sometimes not the most straightforward way to express ideas. They (including myself) also forget that while you are working with a change in front of you it's obvious but in one month it could be opaque. A maintainer is often giving you the perspective of you a month later who built on this system you changed.
I think people are assuming he wrote a pile of hot PHP garbage, but it's entirely possible he just wrote it using Symfony or Drupal and well understood PHP libs and just has no 'modern javascript' to do it, which if he did would cover all of your points. If you haven't gone back to current gen PHP in a while there are some quite solid models that are very maintainable, have security updates (via composer) and so on. It's entirely possible that he didn't do a crazy thing but we'll never know.
A decently structured PHP application is often maintained by nontechnical people with a limited understanding of programming but they can get by with just a text editor and a codebase. I have not come across any nontechnical person who could easily get a react/modern js framework pipeline going to do a small change, not to mention dealing with npm changes. I would almost feel like it would be a jerk move to leave someone without a technical department a pile of react/npm soup right now.