spoonbill

joined 1 year ago
[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Seems like you do have an interest in Wayland, if it informs your choice of DE. Most users have no intetest in it, so they don't care whether it's there or not.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Here is another prediction: the volume of that bet would be nowhere near where it needs to be to make the bet interesting.

Disagree? Create the bet yourself and prove me wrong.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If most people prefer pyproject.toml over requirements.txt, even if it does not support everything you need, isn't it more likely that you will have to change workflow rather than python remaining stuck with requirement.txt?

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I was asking why you need to have a centralized pyproject.toml file, which is apparently why you need constraint files? Most people don't have this workflow, so are not even aware of constraint files, much less see them as a must-have.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Why do you need to have a centralized pyproject.toml?

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

My only use case so far has been fixing broken builds when a package has build-)ldependencies that don't actually work (e.g. a dependency of a dependency breaks stuff). Not super common, but it happens.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

But pyproject.toml supports neither locking nor constraints.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Constraints are useful for restricting build dependencies of your dependencies, especially if they follow PEP-518.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I'm taking a broad approach? The article is literally about the FCC. You know, the Federal Communications Commission. That applies to the entire country.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Data caps are on all plans.

Nonsense. There are lots of plans without caps. Maybe not where you live, but at most that means caps should be banned where you live. IMHO it makes much more sense to require offering a cappless plan, rather than banning capped.

Edit: Googling for "capless internet usa" gives as the first result https://broadbandnow.com/guides/no-data-caps, listing several providers.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Indeed two companies is not really competition. So why not focus on that, instead of reducing choice, which may lead to even less competition by making differentiation harder?

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

If there is no reason for caps, why wouldn't one of these companies simply remove them, giving them a competitive advantage, and making them more money? Why would one company reject making more?

Maybe capless actually costs them more due to bad infrastructure, and they don't see consumer demand for it? Forcing them to go capless would in that case result in higher prices.

Maybe they form a cartel and have collectively decided to keep caps. But why, if it doesn't actually cost them more to remove the caps? And if it does, then prices would again rise if forced to go capless.

view more: next ›