Whether the code is AI generated or not is not important, what matters is that it really works.

Sharing code enables others to validate the method on a different dataset.

Even before LLMs came around there were lots of methods that looked good on paper but turned out not to work outside of accepted benchmarks

Isn't it insane that any web page can run a port scan in the first place? Who wants that?

Meanwhile, running opencode in a podman container seems to stop this particular, err, feature.

If you use uBlock Origin you can enable the "Privacy -> Block Outsider Intrusion into LAN" filter list to mitigate this.

Thank you for mentioning this.

Assuming your container is sufficiently locked down

I had similar thoughts, and my conclusion is that competition is an inherently unstable state of affairs: at some point somebody wins, and they will try very hard to prevent any further competitors from arising.

Indeed, competition is undesirable for all participants involved: everybody wants to win and exploit the rest for their own gain. Note that this is the only way to make competition work and result in its temporary benefits (if nobody wants to win, nobody will compete).

So there must be a system to keep the competition going and preventing the rise of a definitive and exploitative winner, and the existence of this system has to be accepted by the competitors. But why would serious competitors accept a system that prevents them from winning?

Monopolies are unstable (too). They just last for an annoyingly long time.

I mean, not really? They don't decay naturally, all the ones I can think of had to be manually dismantled through State interventions.

But we do ban tools sometimes: you can't bring a knife to a concert, for good reason.

It is both common and uncontroversial to put restrictions on using certain tools in certain situations for safety reasons, especially in public and crowded places: you can't bring a hammer to a concert.

As the provider of a public place, X ought to take certain measures to ensure public safety on its premises. Of course, deciding what is and in not tolerable is the crux of the issue, and is far from trivial.

Because US voters prefer the free market as opposed to government regulation and nationalized healthcare.

It is certainly a market, but I wouldn’t call it a free market.

Healthcare, like real estate, is a dysfunctional marketplace lacking real competition

US voters have no principles. Even republicans started artistically screaming about nationalizing companies when they didn’t want to play ball with the president.

I'm assuming you're European and just want to make an "America bad" post because this is comically ignorant. There wouldn't be mountains of federal code to adhere to if that was the case.

This is a trope among populists: pass legislation around <thing>, observe consequences of doing so, blame the "free market", repeat.

What other countries could teach the U.S. about bringing down drug prices

A look at how European governments negotiate with pharma companies helps explain why Americans pay more for prescription drugs.

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/11/what-other-countri...

Sure, but that article literally contradicts your original point about Americans wanting a "free market" as it lists the complicated nature of existing laws, Medicare, PBMs etc. and the incentives those create.

You could just say "Americans need to vote better and cleanup their laws around this" and yes, that would be ideal, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. It's part of why some want the government to not involve themselves at all: no matter how good the politicians you elect, others can come into office and fuck it all up while everyone is forced to deal with it because they have the monopoly on violence. Not to mention the glacial pace at which our legislative bodies move.

Can you provide evidence for the claim? Polling from pew and Gallup suggest this isn't the case.

I think surveys show voters prefer the opposite, but certain powers are able to overcome that.

> US voters prefer the free market as opposed to government regulation and nationalized healthcare.

Because US voters are dumb. (Just for context, I'm a US citizen).

Free markets don't work when there is inelastic demand for a good or service, and an awful lot of health care (unless you consider 'well, guess I'll just die then' as a reasonable outcome) is inelastic demand.

No, this would crash with numpy arrays, pandas series and such, with a ValueError: The truth value of an array with more than one element is ambiguous.

It is done, in many countries there are legal requirements to report adverse events whenever they are observed upon use

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacovigilance#Adverse_even...

Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R by Simon N. Wood

This book is very strong on the fundamentals, while the R code is minimal and easy to follow.