"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought."

I mean yes, the headline... Uber broke the Taxi Medallion law, and gets around hiring employees and other tax law for example. These are stupid regulations though and everyone knows it, so nobody cares.

> Tesler’s Law (the “conservation of complexity”) -Larry Tesler

> "I love Tesler" -Donald Trump

Tesler II: when Elon does it, it is not illegal.

This article is inane.

The law seems...truthy, though I find it a little too underspecified to assess.

The conclusion is true, and I'll even overlook it being a slight strawman. Your "long genius"[0] CEO cannot talk to AI and get a full business overnight. That's true.

But how does that follow from the "law"? The article admits that you can shift complexity to a complex algorithm or information processing system that the consumer doesn't touch.

You know what's a incredibly complex information processing system? GenAI.

So we have a reasonable conclusion, an ok "law", and no real connection between them. It was an inane non-sequitur.

[0] Not actually a genius.

I clicked on the headline, read the whole article, and then came back here to realize the “law” that CEOs are breaking is the conservation of complexity.

3/10 article, 10/10 headline

The problem with late-stage US capitalism is that, as long as you have money, you are above everything.

* Want to change laws? create lobby group

* Want to get special treatment? buy politicians

* Want to get even bigger? No problems, can do anything for your money, lets pick any candidate for POTUS and we can make it a reality

* Some people are creating problems? (Thomas Massie) - no problems, lets promote another candidate and spend +$30M on his campaign

Citizens? Oh come on, who cares about them, call riot police and they will start behaving properly

Confusing headline. This is "Tech CEOs are breaking Tesler’s Law", which states that you can't eliminate irreducible complexity from your product. The argument is that Tech CEOs think they can replace their workforce with generative AI, which violates that law because it takes humans to design for human problems.