If "70% of Canadian exports are to the US", that's probably why the US has so much leverage, and I can see why the Canadian government would like a change.
Hence the need for a rebalancing of trade partnerships.
I'd like to take a closer look at what exactly Canada is exporting to the US, and what exactly the EU is importing from elsewhere, to see if there's a match. I'd rather buy from Canada than from Russia. Or China. Or the US.
You know how despite climate change being very real, in day to day discussions with other level headed people, they still very regularly say stuff like
"We ran the numbers for an EV, and right now gas is still cheaper, so we are holding off on the switch until it makes financial sense"
Canadian oil would need to be shipped halfway around the world. It would be more expensive. Price is always the top factor for everyone.
Fair point. What we really need of course is more renewables, and that is happening, but not fast enough, so we still need oil. And I'd rather get our oil in a way that doesn't fuel the Russian war machine, even if it does cost a bit more.
The politically-important Alberta oil mostly goes to the mountain states down here. Coincidentally, those same states rely heaviest on coal for electricity. So, the choice is recharge an EV on coal (think arsenic and mercury accumulating somewhere nearby) or good ol gasoline (which is piped from Canada).
I think what you’re wondering is: can residential electricity schedules promote off-peak rates for EV charging. I’ve seen that and I think it takes the edge off.
But we’re in a drought right now. I think hydro is down at least 20%. Wyoming wind power alone totally makes up for that.
I’m sure China would, too. I wonder what’s harder: diverting that oil to the northwest passage, or diverting Persian Gulf oil around the strait of Hormuz?
Right… so why do you think the US imposed tariffs? Germany is already seeing gigantic problems via declining exports because of China. Are they going to stop exports to the United States too?
The EU can’t add any more “trade bazooka” than it already has. Canada doesn’t change anything in that dynamic.
I mainly use them as macros. Not even an advanced and smart macro system, just plain basic macros to avoid copy-pasting recurrent prompts. Is there more to them?
I basically create a skill when I'm tired of always writing the same prompts, and then I adapt it over time.
I have like 3 skills, and so far so good, most of my recent changes have been asking Claude to please stop using metaphors and creative figures of speech that make the documents so much harder to read and understand (maybe it's only annoying to non-native speakers, I don't know)
«It uses an architecture where everything is a plugin»
Ok, that's enough for me. I have developped over the year a plugin fatigue.
Every product relying on "community plugins" for their features implies it works fine the 6 first months, then it's a nightmare of incompatible, deprecated, incompatible plugins, with no consistency and no governance.
I understand how attractive it can be to companies to think, hey, let's make a very small product and rely on other people to make features, and I hope it works, but I'm personally staying away from that.
This works pretty well for these coding harnesses though (see Pi). I like the model where the harness ships with minimal tools and you can spin up plugins for extra functionality. You can usually have the model/harness you're using just create the plugin that you need for you. The advantage of this is that these harnesses aren't optimized for their frontier models like claude/codex are so you can fine tune your environment and burn less tokens... having said all that, I haven't tried this one yet.
> Every product relying on "community plugins" for their features implies it works fine the 6 first months, then it's a nightmare
Eclipse has been thriving since 2002 mostly by virtue of being able to coordinate developers via plugin's and a business-friendly license.
They did need to upgrade early plugins into OSGI, and most of the new plugin designs benefit from copying OSGI, et al. The key is SAT solvers for dependencies and namespace separation, not forcing clients into the same dependency version.
But as you suggest, relying on the community is a moral hazard. In Eclipse there were big players willing to fund key use-cases for their own purposes; elsewhere I've seen sufficient monetization of plugins to offer incentives and stability.
I would add that VSCode plugins follow a different development model. While any OSGI/Eclipse plugin can provide an interface, I believe in VSCode you're limited to the API's they give you (and they make a mess of them, so there's more inconsistencies e.g., in LSP support that anyone can enumerate).
Everyone thinks their workflow is a special snowflake.
Truth is that useful dev workflows and tooling probably coalesces in a tight band. There's really no point in re-inventing the wheel over and over again at this level (the raw tooling).
I don't really like about 98% wheels other people made. Usually they do almost what I want and their UX is horrible. And people asked about how could I get the missing parts gleefully respond that I shouldn't want that. And when I'm bothered by UI they say it's fine and it doesn't matter. I'm not completely unique but being cut to size hurts.
Everything about harness design is still experimental and janky. Throw everything in a pit and let the fittest survive. Large opinionated software is unlikely to survive and more likely to give you a migration fatigue
These types of projects can have a happy ending, but only if the product is popular enough and the plugins are essential to the core functionality. Plugins usually die off because the sole maintainer loses interest, but popularity and necessary can bring new maintainers to carry the torch.
Most vendors that create a plugin-based system end up creating a large library of plugins to kickstart the ecosystem, which many users end up trusting those more because they're "official", so they essentially created an mono-vendor ecosystem with extra steps.
Many of the libraries and executables in Linux are cross-compilable with other ecosystems. It's the difference between opening the door to an existing ecosystem and birthing one.
For a lot of code, I switched to generating code rather than using 3rd party libraries.
Things like PEG parsers, path finding algorithms, string sanitizers, data type conversion, etc are very conveniently generated by LLMs. It's fast, reduces dependencies, and feels safer to me.
Lol. My most recent comment before this one is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47583593. You judge if AI threatens my identity. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a slick narrative.
Or find the best third party library and copy the code from a widely used version that has been out long enough to have been well tested into your source tree.
The problem is not third party libraries. It is updating third party libraries when the version you have still works fine for your needs.
Don't do this. Use a package manager that let's you specify a specific version to pin against. Vendoring side steps most automated tooling that can warn you about vulnerabilities. Vendoring is a signal that your tooling is insufficient, 99% of the time.
Vendoring means you don't have to fetch the internet for every build, that you can work offline, that you're not at the mercy of the oh-so-close-99.999 availability, that it will keep on working in 10 years, and probably other advantages.
If your tooling can pull a dependency from the internet, it could certainly check if more recent version from a vendored one is available.
This is only true if you aren’t internally mirroring those packages.
Most places I’ve worked have Artifactory or something like it sitting between you and actual PyPI/npm/etc. As long as someone has pulled that version at some point before the internet goes out, it’ll continue to work after.
And this is exactly why we see noise on HN/Reddit when a supply-chain cyberattack breaks out, but no breach is ever reported. Enterprises are protected by internal mirroring.
> Is there any package manager incapable of working offline?
I think you've identified the problem here: package management and package distribution are two different problems. Both tools have possibilities for exploits, but if they are separate tools then the surface area is smaller.
I'm thinking that the package distribution tool maintains a local system cache of packages, using keys/webrings/whatever to verify provenance, while the package management tool allows pinning, minver/maxver, etc.
I understand it can be difficult to label, and there's an inconveniently large grey area here, but there is a difference between plain vibe-coded software and software built with AI under the control, direction and validation of a developer.
The distinction is probably not very important for small applications, as nobody cares if a minor script or a one-shot data processor has been vibe-coded, but for large applications it surely matters in the long term.
Just found about this skin market/casino thing, and also that my teenage son purchased a skin for 100€, but is still pretty excited and happy about it because «its real value is around 700€».
I am still processing this information.
Most people have no sense of security. They say yes to strangers if asked to plug in a USB device on their laptop. When I said no in the train to someone asking to plug their device "for charging", I was definitely the bad guy.
Just find anything plausible, for backup storage, or say, to share family photos with grand parents but it does not work on my home wifi because my ISP is blocking ports, whatever.
Ah man, this must be rethorics and you wouldn't lie to a friend close enough to do such a favour, would you?
WHo the h is after you guys anyway, to want such level of degraded-internet-speed?
And about 'Warp', is it or is it not a VPN after-all? They mentionned they aren't a VPN, but that they build on wireguard ??
reply