And yet the people in positions that matter have not fired a nuke since ending WW2. Even the craziest sounding regimes like Russia and NK.

Politicians can be voted out, forced to resign, sometimes removed from office and even occasionally jailed. They also inhabit the same world a nuclear war would make much less nicer.

Nuclear war aside (we're talking any kind of decision making here) politicians face very small consequences for harmful decisions, usually at most losing that high-paid job (and getting another high-paid job).

What would that accomplish? Just to keep their social credit score in the acceptable range while they go touch grass?

Forums would already have code that sanitizes user input when it's submitted. Users aren't directly setting html elements.

And is that sanitization perfect? Kept up to date?

With a safe API like this one that's tied to the browser's own interpretation of HTML (i.e. it is perfectly placed to know exactly what is and isn't dangerous given it is the one rendering it) wouldn't it be much better to rely on that?

No because the web has to remain backwards compatible with older sites. This has always been the case.

Any potential reader should be familiar with innerHTML.

Right. Like how any potential reader is familiar with the risks of sql injection which is why nothing has ever been hacked that way.

Or how any potential driver is familiar with seat belts which is why everybody wears them and nobody’s been thrown from a car since they were invented.

yes, and bugs shouldn't exist because everyone should be familiar with everything.

But if some are marked unsafe and others are not it gives a false sense of security if something is not marked unsafe.

So we shouldn’t mark anything as unsafe then? And give no indication whatsoever?

The issue isn’t that the word “safe” doesn’t appear in safe variants, it’s that “unsafe” makes your intentions clear: “I know this is unsafe, but it’s fine because of X and Y”.

Maybe we should add the word safe and consider everything else as unsafe

Like life, things should default to being safe. Unsafe, unexpected behaviours should be exception and thus require an exceptional name.

Legacy and backwards compatibility hampers this, but going forward…

That doesn't scale to billions of people.

Yes

8+ billion people cannot grow their own food, and if you factor in climate change, many food producing areas will be unable to grow anything eatable.

So I would like to know davidguetta thought process. Maybe he was being sarcastic.

Does capitalism work without human labor? What is the economic model for an automated society?

Feudalism : The nobility held lands and means of production from the Crown in exchange for service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's offices, factories and give him homage and labour, in exchange for protection.

If the people running these things are doomers, there's no need for capitalism to work beyond what it takes them to build their compounds and bunkers right now.

And since a large number of them seem to be building compounds and bunkers...

Capitalism can only sort of work when there is balance between the classes. Inevitably, one wins over the other, which leads to fascism or communism, and later a big reset. If the proletariat (i.e. those who depend on a salary to survive) aren't able to sell their work anymore, the owner class won't need them anymore. I personally see three outcomes:

* Apocalyptic but unlikely: the bourgeoisie gets rid of the proletariat and goes on to enjoy boundless luxury.

* Awful but likely: the bourgeoisie throws just enough to the proletariat that they won't rebel, and goes on to enjoy boundless luxury.

* Utopic: the machines' output is democratically decided and evenly distributed among the entire human population.

Keep in mind that the scenario in which machines are able to replace all human labor is still very remote, and won't happen suddenly. I'm sure many things will occur between now and then that will completely invalidate my simplistic predictions.

It's funny how Lisp has been criticized for its ability to create a lot of macros and DSLs, then Java & JavaScript came along and there was an explosion of frameworks and transpiled languages in JVM, Node or the Browser.

"The problem with Scheme is all of the implementations that are incompatible with one another because they each add their own nonstandard feature set because the standard language is too small." Sometimes with an added subtext of "you fools, you should have just accepted R6RS, that way all Schemes would look like Chez Scheme or Racket and you'd avoid this problem".

Meanwhile in JavaScript land: Node, Deno, Bun, TypeScript, JSX, all the browser implementations which may or may not support certain features, polyfills, transpiling, YOLOOOOO

I want a functioning democracy because we have an entire history of monarchies and dictatorships being far worse. And because I want everyone to have a say, not just a minority of elites who are only human and just as fallible as the rest of us.