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.

> once you develop a good enough utility library for it.

What happens when everybody comes to the job with their own utility library and start working on the same codebase?

Would you like it if you had to get up to speed with several utility libraries your coworkers developed for themselves?

A common set of tools, like the Unix commands, makes it easier for people to collaborate. They were put in an official standard for a reason.

> 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()

... But I don't know why you would, because with builtins and the standard library you can already do

  sorted((count, line) for (line, count) in Counter(Path("filepath").read_text().splitlines()).items())

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

Sure, but you can do that for any functionality in any practical language.

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

This is the first paragraph after the initial quote defining "free software".

> We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.

It seems safe to say the author thinks that one creating "an instrument of unjust power" for oneself is unethical. Though, perhaps if the commenter in question pulled that quote out of the article, it could have helped their point.