I don't even travel that much, and still have trouble. Tethering at the local library or coffee shops is hit or miss, everything slows down during storms, etc.
One problem I've found in my current house is that the connection becomes flakier in heavy rain, presumably due to poor connections between the cabinet and houses. I live in Cardiff which for those unaware is one of Britain's rainiest cities. Fun times.
I'd agree with you in the past, when KiCAD didn't work as nicely with git. And for a professional project, I'd still at least keep snapshots of every milestone with "compiled" output.
But for a hobby project I really don't see the need. It takes a few extra minutes to install KiCAD, clone the repo, and view the schematic at any point in time.
It's not quite the same though, when I search Google I'm generally directed to the source (though the summary box stuff might cross the line a bit).
With AI, copyrighted material is often not obvious to the end user, so I don't think it's fair to go after them.
I think it's non-trivial to make the AI company pay per use though, they'd need a way to calculate what percent of the response is from which source. Let them pay at training time with consent from the copyright holder, or just omit it.
You don't have to agree with it, but I think it's fair to parrot a take from people who have invested a lot of time and effort into considering why free software is good.
The linked page has a clear explanation for why one might consider nonfree software to be unethical.
I get pretty good results with Claude code, Codex, and to a lesser extend Jules. It can navigate a large codebase and get me started on a feature in a part of the code I'm not familiar with, and do a pretty good job of summarizing complex modules. With very specific prompts it can write simple features well.
The nice part is I can spend an hour or so writing specs, start 3 or 4 tasks, and come back later to review the result. It's hard to be totally objective about how much time it saves me, but generally feels worth the 200/month.
One thing I'm not impressed by is the ability to review code changes, that's been mostly a waste of time, regardless of how good the prompt is.
Company expectations are higher too. Many companies expect 10x output now due to AI, but the technology has been growing so quick that there are a lot of people/companies who haven't realized that we're in the middle of a paradigm shift.
If you're not using AI for 60-70 percent of your code, you are behind. And yes 200 per month for AI is required.
That's a very pessimistic take, or optimistic I guess, depending on perspective.
Looking at the Chinese semiconductor development trajectory, and considering that TSMC won't be sitting on their hands, "within a decade" seems really unlikely.
I am aware, I live in Taiwan. While TSMC engineers can be poached "move between countries freely" is not true because moving from China to Taiwan is not so easy.
The key word you mention is "replicating." They'll be chasing for a while still, and it's not clear that they'll be able to leap ahead. Copying is much easier than real innovation.
Wait and see, then change the policy based on what actually happens.
I sort of doubt that all of a sudden there's going to be tons of people wanting to make complex AI contributions to LLVM, but if there are just ban them at that point.
It doesn't really affect your point, but biking 25 miles is going to burn more than 400 calories. Probably double or triple that, depending on their weight and the workout intensity.
