That depends. Inflation is a measure of the cost of living in terms of currency. It can be high either if goods and services required for living become scarce, or if currency supply increases. Currency supply increasing does affect asset prices.
Yes, but they're not directly correlated. Of course events can affect them both! Going to war would both increase the cost of living and (some) asset prices would go way up. But that doesn't mean they should be measured together like that.
`it's technically possible to pass the blame to other people` presupposes that the blame belongs to the reporter unless effort is taken to "shift" it. This is just an inaccurate worldview as many people have pointed out clearly in this discussion. If there's a vulnerability in software the blame lies with people who wrote and maintain the software, not someone who finds and discloses a vulnerability. The person who should `check in on the status of the fixes` is the person who owns the thing being fixed, which is very much the kernel and distro maintainers and not the security researcher. It is you who are willfully shifting blame to an innocent party
You're mentally stuck in 2009-2015. The world has moved on and Spain is now significantly outperforming Germany in growth (obviously not yet in wealth, which is the integral of growth over much longer time periods). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-YZeqk8NCQ&t=456s
The problem with this argument is that pharmaceutical companies are private businesses trying to make a profit, not charities. If it were truly unprofitable to sell drugs in, say, Canada or France, pharmaceutical companies would just not sell their drugs in those countries. It is _less_ profitable to sell drugs in those countries than America but still profitable, which is why they still try to capture those markets. If America fixed this imbalance by forcing a lowering of drug prices in the American market, there's no reason to believe that this would cause raising of prices elsewhere. The only way this would be possible is if it were truly unprofitable to sell the drugs elsewhere, which can't be the case since these are corporations not charities. The real impact would be to slow down new drug development, since existing drugs are already profitable to sell everywhere in the world even in countries with more regulation, but if America fixed its market by lowering drug prices for Americans, the total profitability of pharmaceuticals would decrease, decreasing the incentive to create new pharmaceuticals. That's a totally different and very plausible impact. Rising drug prices for existing drugs in other countries is not a plausible impact.
> If it were truly unprofitable to sell drugs in, say, Canada or France, pharmaceutical companies would just not sell their drugs in those countries
You’re confusing capital and operating costs. Once you’ve developed the drug, selling everywhere you can makes sense. When considering whether to develop a drug or invest in something else, America’s biotech market absolutely turns keys. (But not as uniquely as we think. Europe has a thriving R&D market, it’s just directly subsidised.)
So basically if this true, you prove my point. If Americans weren’t paying these high costs then R&D would slow down and the whole world wouldn’t get these drugs.
America subsidizes these drugs for the rest of the world, which does not pay its fair share into R&D costs. If we’re to fix our healthcare system, this kind of thing can’t continue.
I think they are not saying it's unprofitable, but rather that the current government should shape the market so the environment levels more over US vs the rest. (of course please in a laissez-faire change the market style not the bad socialist stuff)
I think it's likely that both the blog poster and the maintainer are being perceived as more negative in tone than the intent / reality. They both included disclaimers "I must be doing something wrong. And if I am, I'm sorry." and "whatever, it’s their blog so they can do what they want." They're also both giving critical feedback "But, if I'm not, this is a problem right?" "Kinda wish the author would attempt to collaborate rather than write stuff like this" but in both cases the criticism is extremely mildly worded compared to most toxic online discourse. This seems... great? Isn't it good we're able to disagree so politely? It's not toxic to have a disagreement or to give critical feedback. We don't need to all pretend to agree with each other all the time or be happy with each other in order to have a civil discourse.
Yes, you can have Claude Code go through the code and make an .md file with documentation for all the public APIs. I do that for everything that doesn't provide llms.txt.
If you want to not reliably know anything about the code, sure. But if you want to have useful knowledge, using a stochastically unreliable tool isn't going to cut it.
I love Typescript but I think I disagree with this. The point of the post seems to be that features of the Rust compiler help enforce that you use certain runtime / environment / domain semantics in ways that eliminate common classes of errors. That's never going to prevent all errors, but preventing large groups of common errors so that you only have to manually remember a smaller set of runtime/environment/domain semantics could have some value.
It isn't typescript's fault. Borrow checker won't save you from bugs in your SQL queries that you send to the DBMS. Typescript doesn't care about the browser just like rust doesn't care about SQL
The problem is not with TypeScript or even JavaScript but an odd Browser API where mutating some random value of an object results in a redirect on the page, but not synchronously.
Even if the language of the browser were Rust, there's nothing about the type system specifically that would have caught this bug (as far as I can tell, anyways. Presumably there's something in the background periodically reading the value of `href` and updating the page accordingly, but since that background job only would have needed read and not write access to the variable, I don't think the borrow checker would have helped here)
> Setting the value of href navigates to the provided URL [0]
It would have been caught because this API (setters) is impossible with Rust. At best, you'd have a .set_href(String).await, which would stop the thread until the location has been updated and therefore the value stabilized. At worst, you'd have a public .href variable, but because the setter pattern is impossible, you know there must be some process checking and scheduling updates.
But the OP did implement a fully featured app as the Nue comparison half of the benchmark. I have never used Nue and don't know if I ever would. I just think to be fair to the OP, even if incremental cost declines as you keep adding stuff in React, there's no way it is negative, which means the benchmark you asked for logically must have a similar result?
This. It's ridiculous how often people complain about the design of free software. If you don't like it, just don't use it! Use something else! Build your own! Or fork it to work in the way you described that you'd prefer - you can do that yourself if you really want since the source is available
It is totally valid to tell people not to criticize a project offered by someone who made it for their themselves or wants to offer the value to the public but doesn't have the resources to do everything perfectly. But this is not that, and I don't see a non-profit org behind it, so it appears to be something that is being offered on a quid pro quo basis. Thus we need to figure out where the value is being extracted and if the dev are cagey about it, that rings alarm bells.
The default of the command is to generate locally. They don’t need to open source an entire web app. It’s easier to deploy themselves then deal with the burden of open sourcing and maintaining.
This isn’t some conspiracy. It’s a tiny startup trying to ship something useful.
I think you misunderstand my comment. I was addressing whether or not it can be appropriate for someone to question an aspect of an open source project, and not whether this project was part of a conspiracy.
Walled gardens are good because if you insist on picking your fruits only from the wilderness due to moral principles you're gonna get mauled by a bear some time. Sure, you might prioritize feeling morally superior, but the majority of society is more practical
This is an absurd false dichotomy. You can pick fruits from the wilderness and not get mauled by bears. Using apps not in walled gardens has nothing to do with attempts to feel morally superior.
Isn't the better analogy that you insist on being able to get fruits from anywhere - including neighboring towns or the wild - and not just the local marketplace?
Yeah I could get mauled by a bear if I get my fruits from the wild. But that's probably not a risk with the vendor from a neighboring town.
And if there's a fruit I can only get from the wild, who are you to tell me I can't have it? Maybe I get mauled by a bear. Maybe I get robbed in the neighboring town. But what else am I to do when what I want isn't available at the local marketplace?
reply