I like to generate clients with type hints based on an openapi spec so that if the spec changes, the clients get regenerated, and then the type checker squawks if any code is impacted by the spec change.

There are also openapi spec validators to catch spec problems up front.

And you can use contract testing (e.g. https://docs.pact.io/) to replay your client tests (with a mocked server) against the server (with mocked clients)--never having to actually spin up both a the same time.

Together this creates a pretty widespread set of correctness checks that generate feedback at multiple points.

It's maybe overkill for the project I'm using it on, but as a set of AI handcuffs I like it quite a bit.

We want more control over data that we've created, and more control over data that's about us. I'm not sure either of these concepts align well with "ownership" though. Property and data are concepts that don't mix.

Language nitpicking aside... you subvert the walls of their gardens and aggregate the walled-off data without the walls, so users face a choice not between:

- facebook

- everything else

but instead between

- facebook and everything else

- just facebook

But that approach only works if we can solve the "data I created" problems in a way that doesn't also require us to acknowledges facebook's walls.

If that's your threat model, then I think the way forward is to maintain separate identities. There are trade-offs there also of course: fragment yourself too much and the people who trust you will now only trust a portion of what you have to say... unless you have the time and energy to rebuild that trust multiple times.

Of course that's the same with the web we have today, the only difference is that you get control over which data goes with which identity rather than having that decision made for you by the platform boundaries.

> This would predominantly affect businesses where that audience is not trying to find that business. > > Which sort of businesses are those?

Monopolies

I don't think there's a connection there. If I'm not trying to buy a GPU at the moment, the situation re: GPU vendors being unable to reach me is unchanged whether they are one or many.

I suspect it's gonna be clickbaity stuff, gambling apps, distractions and addictions... stuff we can afford to let suffer. If you're actually solving a problem that your audience has, they'll be trying to find you, you don't have to find them. There's a minimum amount of marketing necessary to be findable, but beyond that it's at best a waste of time and at worst a catalyst for other problems that we'd rather avoid.

Would it be like returning to that time when all of the podcast people were trying to tell me about the same quirky thing and I had to decide between letting them down or pretending I hadn't already heard it from the other podcast people?

Maybe the content was better in those days, but as an outsider I'm not too keen on going back. I prefer my friends as separate people.

Agreed. I'm reminded of "debt the first 5000 years" where the author talks about the tricky business of giving gifts to kings and how it usually ends up being a tax later on. Given sufficient power, I wouldn't expect a church to be any different.

How will a centralized digital currency affect whether I decide to burn carbon fuels? If it gets obnoxious enough I can just use a different currency instead.

> Once we have centralized digital currency it will be a foregone conclusion

In that case... what will be a foregone conclusion once we have a centralized digital currency?

Are you sure the whole world won't become completely uninhabitable? It's not like we have a trial earth to test this out on.