Honestly I don’t need to know anything about it at all except that it’s a payment system designed by GNU
Then you seem to know even less then you thought? GNU supports development, but each project is independently designed and developed. Taler's roots are in academia.
Because it's not a crypto-currency it is a lot more efficient: e.g. no need for wasteful proof-of-work or staking. So it certainly does not have all the downsides of crypto.
Here is another prediction: the volume of that bet would be nowhere near where it needs to be to make the bet interesting.
Disagree? Create the bet yourself and prove me wrong.
If most people prefer pyproject.toml over requirements.txt, even if it does not support everything you need, isn't it more likely that you will have to change workflow rather than python remaining stuck with requirement.txt?
I was asking why you need to have a centralized pyproject.toml file, which is apparently why you need constraint files? Most people don't have this workflow, so are not even aware of constraint files, much less see them as a must-have.
Why do you need to have a centralized pyproject.toml?
My only use case so far has been fixing broken builds when a package has build-)ldependencies that don't actually work (e.g. a dependency of a dependency breaks stuff). Not super common, but it happens.
I'm taking a broad approach? The article is literally about the FCC. You know, the Federal Communications Commission. That applies to the entire country.
Indeed two companies is not really competition. So why not focus on that, instead of reducing choice, which may lead to even less competition by making differentiation harder?
If there is no reason for caps, why wouldn't one of these companies simply remove them, giving them a competitive advantage, and making them more money? Why would one company reject making more?
Maybe capless actually costs them more due to bad infrastructure, and they don't see consumer demand for it? Forcing them to go capless would in that case result in higher prices.
Maybe they form a cartel and have collectively decided to keep caps. But why, if it doesn't actually cost them more to remove the caps? And if it does, then prices would again rise if forced to go capless.
I’m confused where you believe consumers are given choice here.
I'm confused by you being confused. Consumers can pick a subscription with a data cap, or they can pick one without. Maybe you can clarify what you are confused about?
Clearly this is a marketing issue, not a technical one.
Why not both? Marketing can be a great way to work around technical issues, e.g. by steering consumer behaviour in a way that avoids the technical issues.
Also, just because one network has sufficient spare capacity to not steer users to reduce data usage does not mean that every network does that. In fact this is where choice comes in: I can pick a provider which spends more money on the network, resulting in a higher costs, but also higher caps. Or I can pick a provider that spends less on networks, resulting in lower costs, but needing caps to make sure the limited bandwidth is sufficient for all customers.
The industry has grown up since then, technically speaking, and there is no cause for data caps except to line the pockets of ISPs.
You mean except the reason I gave, and you ignored?
Yet another alternative is jsonata.org