I think there's some causation vs correlation here - AFAIK Microsoft didn't lead the hike in game prices, it was probably Nintendo? Either way given the strong inflation it seems likely this would have happened acquisition or not.
The layoffs seem more damning but we would need a crystal ball to know if Activision could have skipped them if independent, or bought by another company.
Still it seems hardly clear cut and more story-crafting after the fact by a beurauceat rather than a proper analysis.
I wonder if this proposal suffers an because of Python's extremely generous support period and perhaps the ship has sailed.
- lazy imports are a hugely impactful feature
- lazy imports are already possible without syntax
This means any libraries that get large benefit from lazy imports already use import statements within functions. They can't really use the new feature since 3.14 EoL is _2030_, forever from now. The __lazy_modules__ syntax preserves compatibility only but being eager, not performance - libraries that need lazy imports can't use it until 2030.
This means that the primary target for a long time is CLI authors, which can have a more strict python target and is mentioned many times in the PEP, and libraries that don't have broad Python version support (meaning not just works but works well), which indicates they are probably not major libraries.
Unless the feature gets backported to 2+ versions, it feels not so compelling. But given how it modifies the interpreter to a reasonable degree, I wonder if even any backport is on the table.
In at least the scientific python environment, there's "SPEC0" in which a lot of the de facto core libraries have basically agreed to support the last three versions of Python, no more.
For other libraries they can of course choose as they want, but generally I don't think it's so common for libraries to be as generous with the support length as cpython.
I haven't used Rubygems before but doesn't it allow publishing from a new repo? pypi allows updating publishing configs.
A repo fork (and maybe more so the GitHub identify fork) is definitely not ideal but if your users can get updates to their packages, maybe it's best to move forward as well as possible.
Slack has been a rip off from the absolute beginning really. It's good to see more examples like the OP on why to stop using them, there has never been a single one besides FOMO.
I don't like the platform or owner at all but this was the first time I really looked at their oss'ing of the algorithm, which 2y ago is longer than I realized.
The fact that this issue still exists at all and that the variables have been improved to some degree seems pretty awesome? There was actually no need for this repo to exist in the first place anyways.
(Not a critique of the post itself but I couldn't find a better place to criticize "automatic anti-Elon sentiment which prevails across the board).
Isn't it the EU that pushed for more details on publishers being public in general? I helped someone get their details registered on the Apple app store before their app would be delisted in Europe.
If details are needed, actually verifying them rather than being any self-reported text seems fairly reasonable.
As far as I could tell, the article seems to be specifically about founders, not "everyone".
Personally I don't agree even for founders since I've seen too many that end up just grinding the gears without producing value - when that leads to meetings etc reducing the productivity of the entire team it's a problem. But committing to a stressful life as a founder in itself doesn't seem that bad as long as it's not propagated poorly to the team.
As far as I could tell, by reading the article, it is supposed the be culture of the company. The culture of the company of course applies to people they hire. Do you understand that?
Don't need to compete - demonstrate some ability to use AI in an easy to understand way, get bought out at valuation. Bad for investors, awesome for founders.
Circle is the company managing USDC and is the one to watch for a similar number. They just IPO'd and will probably have more precise data in the next earnings report, but for IPO it seems they reported 2024 $1.5B revenue mostly from interest. I couldn't find holding percentages but as a founder of the token, we can assume much lies on Coinbase - they give a pretty good yield so any coins there will have fairly low interest income for Circle, and their revenue would be mostly coins moved off of Coinbase.
USDC is primarily holding a mix of treasuries and cash. It's unclear how much directly, but if you did some reverse engineering of the math, you could probably get a close idea. Since it's not regulated, the price can drop precipitously quicker than the stock market, so there's some risk calculation that determines their treasuries/cash split.
The layoffs seem more damning but we would need a crystal ball to know if Activision could have skipped them if independent, or bought by another company.
Still it seems hardly clear cut and more story-crafting after the fact by a beurauceat rather than a proper analysis.