Xirdus

This is so stupid. One, why did they make Drop special in this one way when every other trait impl has to repeat all bounds exactly to be valid? Two, the bug isn't even in the Drop impl, it's in the assignment on line 11. q.0 can never be Some(&l) because &l is not 'static. The Drop impl is there just to show the invalid read, but the bug doesn't require it, it's just as wrong for types that don't impl Drop.

The Drop isn't implemented for T at all. It's only implemented for Q<T>. And it's implemented for all Q<T>, in the sense that for every value of type Q<T>, this Drop impl applies.

And I'm still not any closer to understanding what the bug is about.

The bug in the OP is about UNconditional impl. And honestly, looks like very standard code, definitely something that could've been written for real. I can't even explain why it passes checks, it clearly shouldn't.

Why would you ever conditionally custom impl Drop? I don't think I've ever seen that pattern, and I can't think of a use case.

Sounds like not being nihilistic is irrational.

It was literally pressing one button. A double sided grill closed, 40 seconds later it opened back up and 8 perfectly cooked patties are ready. That was 15 years ago in eastern Europe, they've replaced it with an even more automated process at least once since.

> There are machines that mix drinks, but you still learn to bartend by doing it manually and making mistakes, not starting out with machines.

You could say the same about grilling burgers. And yet, there are millions of burger cooks around the world grilling hundreds of millions of patties everyday with zero knowledge of how to grill burgers, at McDonald's and other bottom of the barrel fast food chains.

If not for the social aspect of being asked what you want for a drink and then watching it being made, bartenders would've already been replaced by mixer kiosks by now.

What if, as a result of a risk assessment, I've learned that I'm already pwned? Nihilism or rationalism?

Is it still nihilism if you ran a proper risk assessment first?

Cool, didn't know that. I thought they've got rid of pressure sensitive buttons in PS3 already, not PS4. Thanks!

So apparently, to make pressure sensitive PS2 controller work in PCSX2, you need ShanWan PS2-to-PS3 adapter (or equivalent), DSHidMini, and set input mode to SDL. Since I lack both pieces of hardware, I can't test it myself. Or skip the middleman and get a PS3 controller, which is a better option anyway for several reasons.

I would like you to expand on how my neurodivergence argument holds up if it doesn't hold up in the way I think it does. If you're about to say autists like cats more, I'm going to flip the desk.

PS1 was more fun. You could tell it's failing to load before it failed to load. Then you give it a good smack and it tries harder before giving up. You could get almost any game disc to play reliably in 3 hits or less.

Generic PS2-to-USB adapters ignore that part of the spec, so the PC doesn't receive these inputs at all. You'd need to build your own adapter out of Arduino or something.

As legal as archive.org collection of DOS games playable in browser, by which I mean not at all. But defunct game studios rarely sue.

Cats spent the last 4000 years or so evolving to be more adorable to humans. The reasons we love cats are rooted in our basic cognitive functions, which cats are abusing. I am not taking a piss when I say that people who don't like cats are more likely to be neurodivergent.

LOL already happening https://github.com/storytold/wordcraft

At this point, yes. In early Win32 days, absolutely worth it.

Didn't someone vibe code Photoshop this week?

I am pretty sure he's not super intelligent.

And probably didn't support partial redraws. A lot of GUI complexity comes from handling partial redraws.

I don't fear AI as much as I fear AI rights activists.

There is nothing in Canadian Charter of Rights that prevents corporations' rights to be taken as unlimited. Section 1's phrase "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified" makes it very easy - the judge just has to say that any limits would be unreasonable, and voila, rights are now unlimited. And overriding rights of individuals is just as easy - the judge only has to say that limiting them is justified, and bam, rights are limited.

At least with American system, they actually have to come up with an opposing right that's in conflict with the one they're limiting. In Canada, any right can be limited even without any conflicts.

US courts giving insane leeway to corporations in what a contract can include has nothing to do with whether rights are defined absolutely or not. The exact same scenario could play out if the voluntarily waived rights were reasonably limited rather than unlimited.

With near infinite movies to choose from, one would think you'd name one already.

It does some anachronistic stuff, but I don't think it'd work well cut up and reassembled.

Standards authors provide ways to enhance user experience, developers use it to insert more ads. A tale as old as time.

Never seen Shrek 2 menu, but Shrek 1 had a really good one.

Memento is one of the few movies in history where out-of-order watching would even make sense, possibly the only one. Much like 3D TVs, it didn't catch on because people don't actually want to consume media that way.

If we get AI singularity, then humans will stop doing scientific progress altogether. But if we don't, then it's pretty predictable what's going to happen - things will be much the same as now, except everyone will be using AI for proofs, data analysis, theoretical models and designing experiments, so important discoveries will happen more often. It's also possible that after the AI craze dies down, we'll have enough computational capacity to solve protein folding.

I think so.