f) after so many runs (35-38), it is quite clear that it has some quality

The game is very open to non-larpers, the only requirement is being to walk some 20km in two days (not a lot).

Would be glad to see you there!

Why you should try that?

a) drama
b) strong experiences/ emotions
c) want to experience some new dilemmas
d) like running around in snow with rifles: that is a possible experience
e) do not like running around in snow with rifles: that is a possible experience

As a techno-optimist who believes in an iterative approach, I have to say: this wasn’t it. Let’s try again.

Yes, regulation IS very different, the principles of precaution are no longer dominant in most fields etc.: could somebody please expand on that? Like, really expand, including the side effects and how do the regulatory regimes work now?
Not here.

There was a great opportunity here: lay out practical areas where advancements will bring tangible results. The book mentions psychohygiene & self-driving cars in passing, but everything else gets the same weight as vague takes like “regulation is now different because of Uber.”

(c) The heart of the argument: “Technology can be good, even with some wrinkles.” I agree! Humanity has usually harnessed tech in ways that brought more benefit than suffering.

But this core idea gets buried under name-calling, defensiveness and Twitter thread recaps (not a great sign of signal).

The weird historical parallels do not really end there.

Industrialization and trade laws in Britain? Fascinating, but they don’t vibe with what’s happening now. The timelines are very different, the stakes are different, the dynamics of competition are completely different.

(b) The historical parallels are just bad. It´s great that the author read Blood in the Machine (a great book!), but existential AI safety fears have totally different mechanisms than the Luddite movement.

That is not reflected and it does not advance anything. One wants to ask: so what?

(a) The past successes with LinkedIn the author likes to reminiscence on don’t help the book advance anything. It reads more like “see, I did a good thing in the past, and I still want it to be relevant.” A solid editor would have cut this, sorry.

Administrative joys and sorrows—like spreading everything across dozens of separate Acts or some peculiar ideas about reducing bureaucracy—are a topic for broader discussion, but they’re not unsolvable problems.

(For absolutely no reason, I’m attaching a picture of Guildenstern and Hamlet.)

Overall, this is, in my opinion, a slow but somewhat functional path for Europe to finally emerge from its now nearly 15-year stagnation and decline.

But it’s also a path that will require courage and the understanding that we’re in a crisis that won’t be solved through fragmented efforts.