ATsch

You wouldn't necessarily need more space, but even if you did US streets are already so wide that you can generally apply road diets to them and still get better trafic flow out of them.

> I can’t imagine any of the stop signs here in Los Angeles being able to be replaced by yield signs.

That's because the roads, as they currently are, were designed for stop signs. Removing those stop signs is going to usually involve changing the roads a bit too.

The Pony language has this concept, but I personally found it mostly a pain to use.

> Using a usize often seems wasteful for indexing into small arrays and slices

The opposite is often the case, as the architecture may not support offsetting a pointer by those sizes, requiring lots of casting in tight loops. Making that explicit makes the programmer aware of this.

This is one major reason that C compiler developers want all overflow to be undefined behavior, as it allows them to upgrade for loops that use smaller index types to larger ones.

> In China today you can't even discuss what's going on in Xinjiang

You absolutely can, they openly put it on their own government websites and everything even. These measures are written into public law. All of this is behind some misleading language of course, but chinese people aren't stupid. People, especially in Xinjiang, being aware of what's going on is in fact beneficial to the government, as it serves as a warning to anyone who might resist in the future.

The point is that some party insisting that they have some legal contract giving them permission to do something does not mean that contract is legitimate or voluntary.

The remainder of the comment illustrates some very obvious examples of this from the past.

See, it's not an occupation, it's a "perpetual lease". That I happen to enforce with my army. And we didn't steal that land, they kindly gave it to us. When we held a gun up to their heads and made them sign a document they did not understand. Oh, and these aren't slaves, they're workers. Who happen to be on an unbreakable contract.

(and also, how could I forget, "these Uighurs aren't prisoners, they're just people who, realizing their mistakes, kindly happened to voluntarily come here for education")

> bordering on genocide

It should be noted that it is only "bordering on" genocide by the very watered down defintion that the UN countries themselves were willing to approve such that their own actions (notably the native american genocide) were not considered genocides.

I would agree with you, were it not for two things:

- The fact that neither China nor the US are actually even interested protecting these people from human rights abuses.

- The history of US interventions making thing significantly worse, not better (see: every US intervention)

I think it should have been clear enough from the reply that I think China's actions in Xinjiang are reprehensible?

Maybe here's an example you'll like better: It is true that Ukraine has had a serious rise in neonazi activity in recent history. I am not a fan of neonazis. However Russia's justification of their invasion by that is obviously disingenuous. Their own government is proto-fascist, obviously they are going to do anything but that.

If you apply that same logic to the US, you'll have a pretty good understanding of my position.

I think this is somewhat optimistic about the degree to which the goal is going to be to uncover the actual truth vs painting the worst possible picture they can to justify whatever interventions they have planned.

> modern powertrains traverse various electrification schemes without difficulty.

Indeed, however the majority of currently existing stock is only fitted for operation in at most one or two countries

> signaling systems are trending towards ETCS

"trending towards" is doing a lot of work here, ETCS rollout has been stalling for ages. New train sets are still being delivered today that do not really support it. Most countries have somewhat understandably not been in a hurry to make the huge investments required to replace their current, working systems with ETCS.

> trains that traverse incompatible signaling systems (eg the eurostar) simply carry a set of onboard signaling equipment for each standard.

Yes, which is extremely expensive and also requires full re-certification for every country, which means that in practice most trains are only certified for one or two countries at most.

None of these would be unsolvable with some more willpower of course, but they are still absolutely an issue today.

It is absolutely possible, however government leaders have stubbornly blocked it: https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2021/european-governmen...

I wish this was true. European leaders have been speaking a great deal about how much they are going to invest into trains and how they are the future of green transport, but then in reality they are unwilling to do the things that are needed to improve trains or even actively sabotage them. (see e.g. https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2021/derailed-europe-ra...)

Austria is pretty much the only country in the EU that is actually making genuine strides in this area.

The market has a lot less strong of a grip on society so it is less urgent to simply wish the virus away by reopening everything at a huge human cost.

This is true, but the concurrent work stealing queues and such that are commonly used for such purposes aren't usually textbook C-style linked lists. They (at least in the case of Crossbeam, don't have experience with others) allocate smaller contiguous blocks of items which are then linked together with pointers. This reduces overhead a lot more than the xor trick does while also improving cache behaviour. Also as you mentioned they're already only singly linked in the first place.

In general the primary reason for using doubly linked lists, despite their terrible cache behaviour, is that they are the only data structure that is very easy to write in C. So I'm not sure how much that is going to be an issue in Rust where it is much easier to use other data structures that perform significantly better in practice anyway.

I feel like, given the negative connotations of "Facebook", that's by design.

That shift already exists plenty, as one can see from the high degree of automation of those warehouses. The only thing that Unions would change there is that they can bargain e.g. for re-training of the workers made redundant.

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic at hand but statistics show the far majority of minimim wage workers, for many of whom it is not just a short phase, will disagree with you on this.

I'm not completely sure what you mean, the 2016 votes leaned approximately democrat for <75k and and republican >75k like every other election in recent US history, although admittedly by a lower margin than the previous years. In 2020 it seems to have returned to a larger gap again.

I think that question pretty much answers itself, especially if one looks at voting demographics by income.

The idea of the republican working class party has always been more of a clever rhetorical strategy than a reality.

(perhaps, on a more speculative note, also a reflection of the seemingly general conservative pattern of wanting to see oneself as "normal", to the point of sometimes fabricating "silent majorities" and such, even when there is overwhelming counter evidence)

I pay for youtube premium and still use Vanced for all of it's advanced features, but background playback is useful for far more than music.

Indeed this is by design. Cryptocurrencies are deflationary, which means that it is always better to hold your coins than to spend them. They must be deflationary as there is no reason to mine them or buy in early other than the promise of future gains. Working well as an investment is antithetical to working well as a currency.

I'm sure this will go very differently from the last cryptocurrency bubble, where a whole bunch of merchants started accepting them, just to realize half a year later that beneath the hype, nobody was really interested in using these so-called currencies as an actual currency and quietly shelved it.

I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. The need to understand what you're doing is not at odds with designing our tools to make it easy to do the right thing. Quite the opposite, knowing what we are doing helps us write good tools and good tools help us know what we are doing.

Did you have to sign a non-compete for that job? Regardless of the exact reason for the impediment, it still remains that due to the restrictions, non-competes are not common enough in the EU to even be in the vocabulary of regular working people. I can't find any concrete numbers but it's definitely nowhere near the ridiculous 18% jobs that have them in the US. So it's pretty hard to argue the restrictions aren't effective.

In practice these restrictions are big enough that non-competes are pretty rare except for key personnel with trade secrets and that the restrictions are reasonably narrow. I don't think I know anyone who has signed one. Of course it's still not great for those few people, but they're usually doing well enough as is.

EDIT: I did some googling around and almost every resource referencing them talks about C-level executives and senior managers. So that should give you a rough idea of their prevalence.

They are already effectively outlawed in most of the EU. E.g. in Germany, you must be paid at least 50% of your current salary while the clause is active, for a maximum of two years and "unreasonably broad" clauses are invalid.

Hoarding money on exchanges is the only thing you can do with cryptocurrency aside from buying jpegs and maybe (if you're lucky) drugs.

E.g. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29396 points out that only 10% of bitcoin transactions are economically meaningful and only 2.5% do not involve an exchange.