Any PR will get the same quality review. It's just that they now have a fast lane so they don't have to invest that much time to review a PR they won't fix properly and/or support.
At least I (living in the EU) received an email at work on the 18th that had this section under "What has changed":
2. Verification Data. As part of our efforts to ensure the security of our services, we may ask you to verify your age or identity. We have described what information we collect and how we collect it.
Maybe it is because it is still in development, but building and running the Hello World example just gives me a blank terminal and a white window that is not responding.
This argument is used again and again and I wonder: Why do "people with money" stay where they are when there are countries, islands, even just states where there is less taxes to pay?
> This argument is used again and again and I wonder: Why do "people with money" stay where they are when there are countries, islands, even just states where there is less taxes to pay?
Like others said in the comments here: there's a balance of how much money you have to pay as tax until you move to other places. New York is taxing people on top of whatever other taxes are there just because they have money.
My issue is that if people earned the money fair and square, they shouldn't be taxed because they were successful. And this is what this tax does: oh, you afford to buy a 10M home, here's an X% annual tax just because.
I ran a company in NYC for six years before the taxes and onerous regulatory environment convinced me to bail.
The final straw was when we had to hire a fixer to clear up a state regulatory error that would’ve destroyed our business. No amount of calls or letters over months — by me — fixed the issue. The guy we hired got it cleared up in a week.
That’s how I learned firsthand that the more involved the state tries to be in protecting everyone from everything, the more opportunity there is for bad actors and gross inefficiency, and the worse things get.
It's not the "people with money" leaving. There's equal evidence of people with money staying and people with money leaving.
It's people who use their money to generate more value and employ lots of people that are, consistently, leaving. That means that thousands of jobs for the lower middle class are leaving and going to somewhere with a more favorable business environment.
And that's not good (well, it's good for the other city).
It's easy for people in tech hub cities to think that's never going to change but history shows boom towns going bust repeatedly. Sometimes they come back (Seattle). Sometimes they don't (the whole Rust Belt + Upstate NY).
And once the talent pool from a few large companies moves to another metro, whole industries relocate their offices to chase it.
Are Seattle, the Rust Belt, and upstate NY examples of higher taxes driving wealthy job-creators out? I think they were the opposite: the market moved and then the wealthy people left to follow it.
NYC has always been extremely expensive, and people have largely decided that it's worth the price. I don't see how a little wobble in either direction changes that. Everyone could have already moved to Miami, or Salt Lake City, or even cheaper places if they were actually price-sensitive.
A "little wobble" may not change it more than a "little", but enough "little wobbles" over time become a "big wobble" that may change it in a "big" way. The right question to ask is: what's the elasticity? So far the elasticity of domestic migration to tax increases has been smaller than many expected due to network effects and inertia, but nevertheless if you look at the population growth rates of high tax states like CA and NY and compare it to low tax states like FL and TX, you will definitely see a pattern. Rational people think on the margin. Perhaps only a few people will move if you increase tax rates by 0.1%, but more on average will decide to move than if you hadn't raised taxes - the question really is, how many?
In recent years many large businesses have moved out of Seattle entirely. Some just outside of the city limits to Bellevue and some out of the state completely.
Also I'm someone who did move from NY to Miami during COVID along with maybe 1/3 of my peers (work and social). Not all to Miami but mostly to either the southeast, texas or non-LA socal.
I think every aspect within their opposition is sound and generally to keep the web open and predictable (unlike other oppositions like the Filesystem API).
I just wonder how a highly non-deterministic API like the Prompt API can work in a system that heavily focuses on interop between new and old websites.
What's going to happen is that people build stuff with the current iteration and a few years later a model update will work entirely differently and break the existing implementations. I understand that every once in a while OpenAI also shuts off older models through API but that's a central process.
What if I have Firefox 150 users that haven't updated yet and Firefox 155 users that have different models, while Chrome 160 and Chrome 170 users also exist and have different models. Is it expected that I build entirely different implementations for every browser version out there? Don't the work groups try to prevent exactly that within HTML & CSS through feature gating?
It did give me some ideas for my own stylesheet writing though. The colorsystem is something even non-tailwind projects will have now.