neysofu

Specifically:

> [...] giga- is always 10^9, which is 'billion' in short scale but 'milliard' in long scale.

Jul 2026 939

Jun 2026 1,317

May 2026 1,924

Apr 2026 2,537

Mar 2026 2,183

Feb 2026 2,038

Jan 2026 2,392

I quite agree with the overall point but can we leave this kind of discourse on X, please? It doesn't add much, it just feels caustic for effect and engagement farming.

> While there are things I would handle differently than the current U.S. administration, I appreciate @JDVance taking a leadership role in recognizing this type of regulation is a fundamental unfair trade issue [...]

You may or may not agree, it hardly seems MAGA though.

I suppose you're right. You're still allowed to criticize the government's decisions though! This is certainly true in Italy, which has quite reasonable laws with regards to freedom of speech.

> what is he aiming to achieve here by disrespecting their government

Western government instituitions are hardly sacred. Again, people are allowed to criticize them, or disrespect them event if they so desire. What he's trying to achieve is a more just and reasonable application of the law, as it's quite clear if you'll care to carefully read the tweet instead of raging at his supposed disrespect for the Italian government.

In the world of watches, this logic extends far beyond "handmade vs made by robots". Quartz, for example, is better than automatic & mechanical in every single quantitative metric, yet perceived as lower value due to the lack of craftsmanship.

UBs have unlimited blast radius by definition, and you'll need to write correct code in all your unsafe blocks to ensure your application is 100% memory-safe. There's no debate around that. From this perspective, there's no difference between a C application and a Rust one which contains a single, incorrect unsafe block.

The appreciable difference between the two, however, is how much more debuggable and auditable an unsafe block is. There's usually not that many of them, and they're easily greppable. Those (hopefully) very few lines of code in your entire application benefit from a level of attention and scrutiny that teams can hardly afford for entire C codebases.

EDIT: hardy -> hardly (typo)

Needless to say, no one likes this idea because it throws out of the window centuries of game theory. Endgames would be completely different. I'm not convinced it would be a less interesting game, though.

https://blog.kagi.com/unlimited-searches-for-10

Now, I'd argue that Waymo has probably somewhat solved highways already as they're much simpler than city driving, they're just not offering it to the public yet.

Maneuvering a ship is but a very small part of all that's needed to maintain a ship operational – engine maintenance, paperwork, dealing with port agents and customs, operating the radio, etc.. Much of that can be automated, I'm sure, but the return on investment is quite poor. Crew salaries are a small part of all operations costs, so you're not saving much by removing them from the equation. (Add to that the fact that large cargo ships can exceed $1B worth of cargo, so I'm not surprised that the economics don't make much sense.)

- "You can't ban encrypted messaging. Terrorists will always find a way to communicate."

- "You can't outlaw abortions, just safe ones. Women will always find a way."

- "You can't uniformly enforce gun control. Dedicated criminals will keep buying weapons on the black market."

- "You can't ban cryptocurrencies. Enthusiasts will still trade on P2P exchanges."

All of these are half truth, and half lie. Every policy introduces a certain amount of user friction, which is proven to discourage action. Some people will refrain from infringing the policy (e.g. using guns, performing abortions, using encrypted messaging apps), some others will comply. Percentages obviously vary depending on the specific policy, but it's never 0% nor 100% like "both" sides want you to believe.