Rather than deciding for them from your bubble of privilege in your fiber-connected utopia, you could just ask these poorer countries if it is worth trading global full, high-speed internet access for "not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night".
Or just watch what they do when presented with the choice.
Ireland is actually pretty compact compared to Africa or Siberia or South America or central Asia, and those are almost certainly not as wealthy as Ireland per-capita.
Are you arguing that there's no economic value to bringing internet to underserved regions like vast territories? Or that those people would be unwilling to pay for it? (They seem to be quite willing to buy mobile phones.)
Starlink doesn't qualify? Because that's a practically unbelievable track record. It's easy to say it's obvious, but it was only obvious in hindsight (or perhaps to Elon, but I think the reason that it was successful was actually more about him just being relentless)
I'm not an Elon acolyte, but as with his other enterprises (SpaceX, Tesla), he succeeded where others (Irridium etc) repeatedly failed.
It's really hard to argue that he got lucky when he keeps pulling these really extremely high capex and hard-tech and business successes off so cleanly, especially when you see the entrenched opposition (govt, politics, competitors) that's been arrayed against him.
But Bluetooth is basically a giant blast of security vulnerabilities. On the consumer side, yes, it's a big subsystem to drop, but on the server side, it's a little bit different!
I'm not an OpenBSD expert, but seems like you should be able to pass BT through USB and then do that in a subsystem or an isolated environment like a VM.
This isn't directed at your excellent comment, but about wealth tax in general (and the proposed California version specifically);
Should we tax the very people who are literally creating the future before they've even done so?
The progressive views on a wealth tax are an incredibly shocking blind spot, esp on this site, begun by those who are immersed in startups and believers that risking (venturing?) to pursue tech ventures can bring about a more excellent future for everyone, not just the founders. We dare to imagine a future that does not exist, and then we believe in it until it does.
If anything, we want to lubricate that path, not add friction. Hitting the VC's or founders who've made it hits everyone, all the way down the line.
Odd that you refer to your efforts in a startup as delivering a windfall, as if you didn't earn/expect it, as if it's a lottery ticket.
Should we tax lottery earnings? Sure, why not, since we tax everything else.
But a startup is not a lottery ticket, and we are harming it, at least indirectly and likely directly, by taxing it before it even exists. Even just the paperwork to handle all of this is needless friction.
> Also, Claude has made it apparent time and time again that it does not want people using Claude Code as a "tool" in a workflow.
Why would Anthropic get to dictate how someone uses a "tool" (that's literally what Claude Code is... a tool in a workflow)
They're swimming upstream. Trying to maintain a rapidly shrinking moat and not being very creative about it. Making enemies of your users is often a failing strategy.
Wouldn't it be great if we could just legislate fixes for everything? /s
This seems to be a result of what people call the uniparty system, but that's not really an accurate term:
This actually embodies what the establishment on both sides of the aisle want: CONTROL
They want this for many different reasons: they have an unbridled lust for power, or perhaps they are willing to burn down fair elections for the good of all mankind, but actually let's be more generous!!
Most likely because they are afraid, unjustly or not:
* of real terrorists that they think, sometimes correctly, are using E2EE
* of children's immature minds having neural pathways being changed by things they're not quite ready for, or perhaps becoming addicted to the very real and powerful nature of porn)
* or, you know, whatever! Maybe they're parents and want to protect their kids and everyone else's kids.
Really, why doesn't actually matter too much.
The fact is that they just don't understand the technology and the FUNDAMENTAL TRADE-OFF BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND FREEDOM, that tension between privacy/human rights/dignity and technological "bad things" that are always in the news.
They get told one simple thing by lobbyists or even well-meaning constituents, and then they form their worldview around it. And THEN they write legislation (or, more likely, get handed ready-made legislation by lobbyists with an axe to grind)
We, the knowledgeable in this area (regardless of our party persuasion -- I'll work on my people, you work on yours!) should start to educate our non-technical legislators. We have to be the trusted voice of reason when it comes to tech, because they're hearing a lot of things from a lot of different voices.
How? By getting involved. Get involved at the LOCAL level, because THOSE people are the ones that serve as the feedramp for national or international politics. After 20 years, your education might percolate upwards to the people who are actually writing new laws. You don't need to be a "crazy" sounding activist or conspiracy theorist: in fact, that works against you (usually). Just be an adult, try to understand what they're trying to accomplish, and explain how they can accomplish it or that it can't be done that way for specific and reasonable reasons.
These are all just my opinions as I see increasing amounts of this sort of legislation being pushed by Meta and other actors. This comment also has a very US-centric bias, so please correct me if you're in another country where things work differently.
Have to prove fraud to get there. "Under" capitalization is a judgment call. Effectively, it's very rare. An LLC launches with effectively zero dollars literally dozens of times a day.
Was yours 3G? The first-gen was offered with 3G (mobile) as an option. I imagine that killed battery life much faster and might not have been tested as well as the wifi-only option.
If you truly believe that it WILL get there within the next couple of years, then you might as well start playing with it now (and, yes, you will be very surprised, especially for shorter/smaller projects or nicely modularized larger projects)