Basically, it's Bjarne Stroustrup reciting the history of C++, mentioning the principles on which the language stood both back then and now, and also the (technical and social) problems that occurred both back then and now.

1. It is indeed disrespectful to consciously "taking up other people’s time" (the Chinese way) without their consent.

2. The real world works asynchronously. Either if you are a jerk having no regard for other people's time, or you are a very punctual person getting out of your way to be on time for others (by coming earlier), there is wasted time to be expected. One can prepare for that and act like a functioning piece in a loosely coupled system, or to just blame others.

"It starts out as fun, a game in pre-school, but then..."

For some of us (like me a few other subjects that I remember) the conforming game was never fun. To force someone to wake up and then to sync to an activity program, and then to sleep some programmed hours, and so on... it was necessary maybe, but I never recall it to be felt as "fun".

Actually, nowadays a system of ground stations and high altitudes atmospheric floating balloons can be made to serve the very same purpose. The ground stations would serve for triangulation of balloon's position and those at their turn could serve the rest of the service-consumer base. As a bonus, the balloons would be obviously more manageable compared to satellites, the cost of taking them into operation would be of course much lower (no more atmospheric pollution), and be disposed cleanly without causing the problem discussed in the article.

To have Python 2 and 3, and then CPython and PyPy and all kind of other similar flavors of the same thing is not really in line with `there should be only one obvious way to do it' don't you think? Do we see something that needs to be fixed in there?

The British Government had DMs, that's what they sold trying to keep their currency at fixed rate. You say they should have kept Deutschmarks to sell them later for what? For depreciated sterling pounds? It doesn't make sense, the only thing that a government has plenty of is its own currency. Governments are "rich" in their own printed stamps, the challenge is to keep those stamps valuable. That's what the British Government was trying to do.

"The treasuries are denominated in dollars: If China decided to dump all the treasuries on the market at once (driving US interest rates through the roof, and the price of the T's down), the US gov't would just buy it's debt back for pennies on the dollar."

Buy with what? With more printed dollars? When someone so large as China starts dumping cheap U.S. bonds (dollars) on the wild pulling down currency's value, it won't be the only acting player. Nobody wishes to loose value by holding to a rapidly depreciating currency, so expect a shopping spree all over the world. It all comes down to faith. Small players can't trigger such big events, but China could. It won't matter that U.S. debt problem gets solved if its currency looses monopoly.

As I see it, the western legal system which relies on written analytical laws appears indeed as an "alternative", but western judges do for example make use of judicial precedents too. This system is based on a set of principles that have just a lesser use in western legal system.

Aside from the law of nature, I remarked the use of precedents as a co-basis for juridical mediation. Although this is something used all over the world outside Somalia (on a secondary role and usually only in an informal manner), its interesting to know it to work somewhere in real-life as a primary law principle.

That ideology was just a tool to prop up a system of occupation. What really happened behind all that was an ongoing russification all over the Soviet Union, effects of which make themselves visible in an outstanding manner today in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Latvia, and other countries. Yeah, it was pretty that red color from outside, but living under it was a nightmare (unless you were reaaally stupid, in which case the system took care of you).