Aefiam

As far as I understand Apple could have still supported an additional lightning port if they really cared about it.

Per gemini for making ligthning accessories you also have to pay 4$ to apple per device that are passed onto the consumer.

I dont know in what way that has to do with colonization.

USB everywhere is nice because you can use the same charger for all kind of devices and dont have to carry multiple with you.

The different kind of specs for usb cables is unfortunate, but you can just buy the highest spec ones and only use them.

northward movement of herds are already banned between mexico and the usa because of screwworms, so tariffs are irrelevant. Also transmission also occurs through wildlife so banning that is also not enough.

Even if the budget for software development were to stay constant, if an ever increasing part of it is spent on llm usage, it will reduce the money left for developers, resulting in mass layoffs and/or mass salary cuts.

I think the reason is that other consoles were jailbroken because of their browser, so now sony doesnt include it.

from the article:

It is possible to set up automated systems to gatekeep this, but with a non-negligible dollar value attached to it, the incentive is just too great for the AIs to just keep arguing, reopening the same PR, etc.

It doesnt really change much, by buying a company its future ebitda will be included, it only delays the reward by some time. So yes he can just buy a bigger company

they did invent the wheel, they just didnt use it for transportion.

The iphone could have had both usbc and lightning, so if they cared about that they would have done it.

you can develop just as fast or even faster with python once you develop a good enough utility library for it.

For example my python interpreter imports my custom List and Path classes and I could just do the following to get the same result:

List(List(Path("filepath").read_text_file().splitlines()).group_by_key(lambda x:x).items()).map(lambda x:(len(x[1]),x[0])).sorted()

and if used often enough, it could made an utility method:

Path("filepath").read_sorted_by_most_common()

So I find it shortsighted to reject someone based on that without giving them a chance to explain their reasoning.

I think generally people really underestimate how much more productive you can be with a good utility library.

how is this any less secure than running a binary/installer? the binary could run this inside?

this page gives no arguments why nonfree software is unethical

The optimal amount of fraud is zero.

But fraud prevention is not free and has negative returns at some point.

I dislike it when people use "the optimal amount of fraud isnt zero", because it is wrong and makes the underlying problem harder to understand, which is that people like to overoptimize a single desirable property(fraud prevention) without considering other desirable properties(like ease of use and a low rate of false positives for legit transactions)

case .foo is explicitly mentioned in https://peps.python.org/pep-0622/ :

While potentially useful, it introduces strange-looking new syntax without making the pattern syntax any more expressive. Indeed, named constants can be made to work with the existing rules by converting them to Enum types, or enclosing them in their own namespace (considered by the authors to be one honking great idea)[...] If needed, the leading-dot rule (or a similar variant) could be added back later with no backward-compatibility issues.

second: you can use case MyObject() as obj: print(obj)

So city dwellers in the ancient Roman world did not have kitchens

Thats not true ( https://quatr.us/romans/roman-kitchens-houses-ancient-rome.h... ).

Rich romans did have kitchens, poor people could not afford one and instead made food in their appartment room or bought food from streetvendors or takeout food from thermopolia.

There was likely no demand for food delivery as poor people couldnt afford it and rich people had slaves to make their food.