Literally the next sentences:

> It’s one that we’ve been facing for quite some time. The reason we wrote this report, however, is to highlight the fact that we’re sort of in this moment in time right now, with our relationship with the U.S. deteriorating and us trying to diversify our trading partners, to highlight the fact that we are still not really all that competitive. Our productivity growth is quite low and has been for a few years now. So, banging this drum about wanting to raise this issue around competitiveness, that was the goal of this.

With the U.S. moving from a cooperative trade partner to a trade competitor, Canada needs to up its game.

No, it’s actual insurance:

> Iran has started a Bitcoin-backed insurance service for Iranian shipping companies that want to transit the Strait of Hormuz, the semi-official Fars news agency reported, citing documents obtained from the country’s Ministry of Economy and Financial Affairs.

> According to a screen shot of the insurance company’s website, dubbed Hormuz Safe and shared by Fars news, it “provides Iranian shipping companies and cargo owners with fast, verifiable digital insurance.” Fars didn’t give a detailed break down of how the insurance works and whether it’s available to foreign shipping companies and vessels.

Why would a brand new car not be road worthy? Is it common for new cars to be unsafe to drive?

You’re not an example of what we’re taking about here. Congratulations!

A better example would be if you’d changed the behavior of the library as you did this work, and the library changes introduced hard-to-detect bugs across the application.

Same article syndicated on msn.com, without paywall: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/new-york-californi...

The issues:

> The New York and California pension systems would become holders of SpaceX shares through their passive allocations if the company is admitted to major U.S. stock indexes.

> The officials… objected to the amount of power the board has given Musk over the company, including:

- voting control over the stock,

- veto power over his own removal as CEO, and

- protections from litigation, including mandatory arbitration for SpaceX shareholder claims.

> …

> In their letter, the pension leaders urged SpaceX to:

- adopt one-share, one-vote or sunset super-voting shares within seven years;

- install a majority-independent board and separate the CEO and chair roles;

- eliminate provisions protecting Musk from termination without his approval;

- scrap mandatory arbitration; and require independent approval of related-party transactions with Musk's other companies.

(Formatting mine; moved paragraph about becoming holders above the lists of concerns and recommendations.)

Isn’t a change to the code that incorporates your suggestions enough acknowledgment? Presumably the code change would be required to get your approval?

Docker recommends using multi-stage builds e.g. Stage one image has the package manager, stage two image omits it completely, leaving only the installed software.

Ultimately the “lock in” boils down to “when this breaks someone has to pay to fix it”. Automation and tech makes the galaxy of things that can break much larger, and the pinpointing of “who should pay to fix this” much harder. “Lock in” feels like an attempt to simplify toward “only we can fix it”, with the downsides of cost and time.

I think this site doesn’t capture Gall’s Law correctly, and your observations are closer to the original.

Gall notes that the universe naturally trends toward complexity and unintended consequences and therefore complex designs should be assumed to already be full of these unintended consequence “bugs”. He proposes that systems should be designed:

- with less scope to reduce unintended consequences,

- with less rigidity to allow for workarounds when unintended consequences arise, and

- to take advantage of “momentum” to reduce the required energy to use the system correctly. In other words make the right thing the easy thing, remembering that the easiest thing to do is nothing, thus systems will halt if operators get too busy with other tasks.)

> … VC's are making actual investment decisions based on imaginary internet points?

The only claim here is that there’s a report that tracks GitHub star growth that is that is presumably read by VCs:

>> Union Labs is the most consequential case. It was ranked #1 on Runa Capital's ROSS Index for Q2 2025 - a widely cited VC industry report identifying the "hottest open-source startups" - with 54.2x star growth and 74,300 stars. Our analysis found 32.7% zero-repo accounts, 52% zero-follower accounts, and a fork-to-star ratio of 0.052. The StarScout analysis flagged it with 47.4% suspected fake stars. An influential investment-sourcing report that VCs rely on was topped by a project with nearly half its stars suspected as artificial.

Again, the claim here is that the report is “influential”. Maybe?

>

Union Labs is the most consequential case. It was ranked #1 on Runa Capital's ROSS Index for Q2 2025 - a widely cited VC industry report identifying the "hottest open-source startups" - with 54.2x star growth and 74,300 stars. Our analysis found 32.7% zero-repo accounts, 52% zero-follower accounts, and a fork-to-star ratio of 0.052. The StarScout analysis flagged it with 47.4% suspected fake stars. An influential investment-sourcing report that VCs rely on was topped by a project with nearly half its stars suspected as artificial.