> with fully private data on the client side

How is the data fully private?

Even if Apple were to defeat the geofencing trick, it's trivial to hide behavior:

1. Make an API call to your server with the build number of the app.

2. Have that API response control whether the "secret" features are available.

3. Only enable each build's secret features once it's passed review.

4. Profit?

No dynamic/interpreted code required.

And there are sufficient variations on this that I would guess it's reducible to the halting problem and thus undecidable.

Scandinavia with a tax pressure of 50% or something paints another picture than you do. What is probably more clear is that something of a mix between socialism and capitalism have been the most successful. Probably depending on a lot of factors, including implementation details.

The idea that we do the "eat the rich" and it solves all the problems is simplistic? No, tell me it ain't so.

But, as the fine original article basically says, that doesn't make it wrong to want to redistribute the wealth. It won't replace other things, like a more equitable distribution of income, but it sure helps.

The problem is equity. Not only in it's economic meaning, in its social context. We don't really need equality, we need an equitable outcome. And there is no way that Musk being paid $54b for his actions in control of his companies, is equitable, no matter how legal, proper or permitted in law it is.

We've got only a very limited understanding of exactly how the current climate works. We have (and have had for a very long time) crude understanding that more CO2 == more energy from the sun retained == more hotter overall.

We've got a Chesterton's fence here with our existing climate as it was between a long time ago and 1940. Sure, sometimes it gets too cold and sometimes it gets too hot, but it's mostly something we've gotten used to.

Once we get into a situation where all sorts of enormous systems with enormous inertia get out of whatever balance they've been in until now change, we're off into radically uncharted territory. It's not something we should gleefully jump into just to see what happens.

We're dancing on a cliff in the fog, we may even be wile e coyote dancing on a cloud.

"mad max" is "turn off all fossil fuels"

"venus" is an example of what can happen with too much CO2 in the air

One of those is actually a fictional thought experiment, the other's actually quite real. The magnitude of how bad the real one is is pretty terrible.. I guess I should just trust you that we can't possibly become venus; is 1/100th of venus tolerable?

"Between madmax and venus" is the path we (civilized, happy people) need to follow over the next 100 years. Hopefully it's a pretty broad path.

Note: I think you meant to say "lossy" instead of "lossless"

I like how mad Max thunderdome is a given at this point and the env work is just to prevent Venus #2

I think all of these approaches are not "or" but are instead "and" ...

We need both PV solar and "let's get some heat" solar; we need LiFePO4 and nmc batteries; we probably even need to keep fossil fuels and biodiesel and other biogas.

Every little incremental bit helps... It's a race between turning into venus and turning into mad max's thunderdome.

Ruby is slow and encourages an esoteric convention over configuration style of OO code.

If you enjoy it, more power to you. However, Python is everyone's second favorite or least favorite language, and it runs laps around Ruby any day. Then there's Go if you need some extra oomph!