Given that:
1) You would need to write vast quantities of unsafe Rust to port the whole kernel to it.
2) Unsafe Rust has none of the properties you describe above.
3) Unsafe Rust is intentionally designed to be difficult to use.

The effective language the kernel would be re-written in would be very very different than the Rust you describe. Much more so than "C" and "kernel C".

I mean that makes way more sense than shoving a ton of UB ridden C++ hacks and unsafe Rust code into the kernel.

The 1900s-1920s was at least mildly regulated. It's more analogous to the "wildcat banking" era from 1830s-1860s when banks printed their own currencies redeemable in some other assets.

The era was known for regular scams as well as bank runs.

How is this "free market" going to work with private wells or do you think rural ag runs off city water utilities? Sounds like the "free market" will require new, huge government infrastructure to get off the ground and police.

Who believes the US government is capable of existing? Existing would require having been capable of building something at some point in time. The fact is the incompetent and unknowledgeable people don't work for the government either. That would require the US government having built office buildings for them to work, some level of communications infrastructure, etc.

And who believes the US government is capable of building ANYTHING?

It turns out you can achieve an obvious, objective mass waste of resources in any ideological paradigm.

No "actual argument".

No doubt you've personally reviewed all (or any) of the data the scientists have published first hand.

Probable scenario 2 as outlined by US scientists is that covid-19 evolved from a corona virus that was already transmitting in humans that no one was tracking because it didn't cause any symptoms.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

No doubt they are just CCP puppets though.

I'm guessing you weren't alive the last 10 years where there has been lots of "printing money" and record low inflation.

Inflation in the 70s and 80s tracked real oil prices almost exactly, but monetarists used the crisis to take over the fed.

Core CPI was 3.6% in 1973 and 8.3% in 1974.

Somehow we believe:
A) The Fed suddenly started "printing money" at the end of '73
Instead of:
B) The embargo starting in Oct. '73 was what was behind the inflation

But it doesn't stop there. Inflation starts to go down again after peaking at 9.1% in '75.

In '77 it's at 6.3%.
Then at the end of '78 you have a shutdown of Irans oil production. Iranian government is overthrown in '79.
In '79 inflation is at 9.8%.
Inflation peaks in '80 at 12.4%, slowly decreases after that.

So, obviously what happened is the Fed started "printing money" as soon as the first crisis hit, stoped after it was over. Then Volker and the monetarists who were in charge during the 2nd crisis, somehow, inexplicably, secretly started printing money again -- despite it being ideologically anathema to them -- as soon as the 2nd crisis hit. Then stopped "printing money" after the crisis was over.

Measured inflation has remained historically low -- in both government and private indexes such as the MIT billion price project -- despite a large number of cities and states enacting minimum wage hikes recently. I will note that people's perception of inflation as measured by surveys consistently exceed measured price inflation.

Why your is your intuition is not the case (or at least not the case in the US in 2019)? The reality is, inflation is not a very well understood phenomena.

The obvious question you should probably ask though, is what percentage of costs labor constitutes. In your example of McDonalds, a quick google shows that startup capital costs are around $1-2M. Now add input costs, capital replacement costs, ongoing rental and franchise fee costs. Even amortized over a 10 year period it appears labor costs are likely less than half of all expenditures.

It is possible to be a successful, growing, progressive, ethical, technically incompetent windows shop. This is probably the norm outside of the SV/Bay Area bubble.

Every one of those countries except Sweden was invaded and bombed during WW2 and Norways GDP per-capita is way higher than the US.

Why would the tax rate negate the 12% output advantage. You seem to be mixing GDP per-capita and median household income or per-capita household income. California's median income is 3rd and 30% above the national average.

What exactly is your definition of the top?

It's true that the incomes are higher on the coasts, but the costs are also much lower in the interior. Rents 1.5-2 hours out from SF are roughly what I was paying back in Tallahassee.

I'm a Florida ex-pat living in SF for the last 7 years. If you are an engineer who isn't incompetent, and you want to maximize your income, you basically have to work here. 80-90% of the engineers I knew back at FSU are here for that reason regardless of their political ideology.

California was ranked 17th per capita in 2012 if you include DC as a state. As of 2015 (according to wikipedia) California is ranked 10th per capita (not counting DC). Other than New York, all of the states with higher numbers either are "petro-states" with low populations (Alaska, Dakota, etc) or quasi-city states (Massachusetts, etc).

x86 has had POPCNT since SSE 4.2.

This exact thing has happened to me at Amazon and Google interviews. At Amazon the interviewer was apparently one of those people who don't like to be corrected and ended the interview right there. Now I always reply, "The answer you are probably looking for involves a lookup table..."