That's different from saying that boeing is too big to fail for example. The US can't accept to lose its only major commercial aircraft manufacturer. Or Intel for similar reasons.

But what you're describing is about keeping the AI bubble from popping. Can a bubble really be too big too fail?

What I'm describing is the scare-quotes too-big-to-fail. Some actually are. But we use that term to mean anything that might cause significant economic trouble nowadays.

For us it's too late. But we must push for better laws and build better systems for those that come after us.

Audit at random? With severe penalty in case of non compliance.

Then what about work from home? Does it increase mortality?

I bet any change in mortality due to increased isolation is offset by decreased deaths due to traffic acidents.

> We'll finally be able to build a society for everyone.

I assure you this isn't the only blocker and its naive to think that [other_set_of_humans] will not try to consolidate power for themselves after you remove the current set.

Most people are not in it for their fellow man and whoever sold you this idea that billionaires are the only impediment to, or even blocking now, a better society -- lied to you.

By all means get rid of the billionaires, I don't particularly care; just don't be so surprised when it turns out that was just a side quest.

I think there are other avenues here that are probably better spent to make society better.

Everyone in the US misses the 50s, marginal tax rates were crazy high. "Oh, but people had lots of deductions and not many people actually paid the top rates" - yeah, that's exactly the point, it encouraged money to be spread around more. And a whole lot of people prospered, while government revenue was less lopsidedly concentrated too.

Get people away from paycheck-to-paycheck debt loads and you've improved a lot of lives regardless of if those people are egalitarians who will then vote for utopian policies. We know that allowing more and more consolidation ain't the move.

We have 4-5x the normalized GDP per capita compared to the 1950s.

The amount of taxes we collect isn’t the problem. Excessive government spending and inflationary pressures on things like housing is (Which, btw seems to always go up regardless of what political side you want to point fingers at)

Maybe but society was more egalitarian when we did so maybe we start there.

> The outcome is the same.

That's the problem. The outcome is not the same. It couldn't be more different. That's how one side knows they're right.

> Fourier argued that the distribution of heat through the rod could be written as a sum of simple waves.

How do you even begin to think of such things? Some people are wired differently.

I don't know/remember the historical derivation, but the story you might get in a class goes something like:

Energy can't be created or destroyed, so it follows a continuity equation: du/dt + dq/dx = 0. Roughly, the only way for energy to change in time is by coming from somewhere in space. There are no magic sources/sinks (a source or sink would be a nonzero term on the right).

Then you have Fourier's law/Newton's law of cooling: heat flows proportional to temperature difference, from high to low: q = -du/dx.

Combining these, you get the heat equation: du/dt = d^2 u/dx^2.

Now if you're very fancy, you can find deeper reasons for this, but otherwise if you're in engineering analysis class, just guess that u(t,x)=T(t)X(x). i.e. it cleanly factors along time/space.

But then T'(t)X(x)=X''(x)T(t), so T'(t)/T(t) = X''(x)/X(x). But the left and right are functions of different independent variables, so they must be constant. So you get X''= λX for some lambda. But then from calc1, X is sin/cos.

Likewise T' = λ T so T is e^-λt from calc 1.

Then since it's a linear differential equation, the most general solution (assuming it splits the way we guessed) is a weighted sum of any allowable T(t)X(x), so you get a sum of exponentially decaying (in time) waves (in space).

It didn't come completely out of nowhere, Euler and Bernoulli had looked at trigonometric series for studying the elastic motion of a deformed beam or rod. In that case, physical intuition about adding together sine waves is much more obvious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%E2%80%93Bernoulli_beam_t...

Other mathematicians before Fourier had used trigonometric series to study waves, and physicists already understood harmonic superposition on eg a vibrating string. I don't have the source but I believe Gauss even noted that trigonometric series were a solution to the heat equation. Fourier's contribution was discovering that almost any function, including the general solution to the heat equation, could be modelled this way, and he provided machinery that let mathematicians apply the idea to an enormous range of problems.

I think he was very familiar with differential equations and series expansions and the "wild west" stage of calculus in general. The frontier of cool and interesting mathematics has moved a lot in 200 years.

Also these stories are "storified" over time, the reality is always messier (same with startup founding stories etc..).

A common mistake I see in people reading mathematics (or even computer science papers) is to think the proof set out in the paper is the thought process that lead to the interesting insight. It is almost always an ex post facto formalisation.

Because people who say that are delusional.

If you don't need capital you don't need capitalism.

How ironic if that's how it ends.