The one you reference doesn't look like it misrepresents the licenses, i.e. of you use it to make your own derivative you would expect to have to share modifications you make to the LGPL code.
The facts are interesting but the conclusion a bit strange. These package managers have succeeded because git is better for the low trust model and GitHub has been hosting infra for free that no one in their right mind would provide for the average DB.
If it didn't work we would not have these massive ecosystems upsetting GitHub's freemium model, but anything at scale is naturally going to have consequences and features that aren't so compatible with the use case.
I think it's usually a bit more complicated, i.e. the people who were expected to do processes don't and someone else shows the people asking for access that there's a faster, cheaper, cooler tool.
It's a mixed bag.. If you spend much time in a poorly reviewed ecosystem then you are quickly taught that if you try to make things work in their broken crap you will lose a lot of time and have no code to demonstrate you were working at all.
If you always inject the same repair layer approach of your own crap then you ship more reliably and have your pleased client and your lock-in. The pleased client then has to decide if they should listen to a replacement who says you are insane but can't seem to ship anything.
I think interruptions had better be the top priority. I find text LLMs rage inducing with their BS verbiage that takes multiple prompts to reduce, and they still break promises like one sentence by dropping punctuation. I can't imagine a world where I have to listen to one of these things.
> Eliminating cars doesn’t eliminate the need for infrastructure for moving goods.
Burying other last mile utilities that waste less land was not insane when real estate was a fraction as valuable as now and engineering technology was worse.
When I see bad faith arguments like this I earnestly worry that maybe sometimes I do the same and just don’t recognize it.
Did you read my comment about the cost of laying fiber being far different from the cost of digging truck-sized tunnels and make a conscious choice to pretend I was making a nonsense argument about diesel-powered fiber, or did you construct this strawman without realizing it?
I don't think you are trying to look at it rationally but simply in terms of priors where sprawl has cost an immense amount of resources. A tunnel where 2 pallets can cross is not much larger than a sewer, fits bellow a pedestrian/emergency vehicle system and is more valuable than a larger tunnel because it can never be DoT approved.
