throw827474737

Wowowow stop.. last time I seriously looked aeons ago (4 or 5 years? :D) there was Vue as the nice smaller thing as an alternative React.. besides some other few bigger names. Noe Vue2, and Vue3? That didn't age well? And Svelte?

Omg, doing (because I need to) C or C++ stuff, where you have (or lets say you are bound to for several reasons, compatibility, regulations,..) C++11.. or even C99 .. man I feel so old and slow as I potentially am, lol.

What has become of the thoughts to let the grid not only cope with it but actually make the cars part of the battery system to support the grid for peaks?

No, the point about unsafe is not just only those fancy few low level implementations thst Rust language has no concept for, but proper high level data structures you cannot realize safe?

But even then, what's different limiting to the safe subset of C++ (haha yeah I have to chuckle a bit) and declare the dame for the necessary unsafe parts there? I really dont get it it seems ;)

Oh wow, code generation will have its prime time next year already, and in 2030 we will already be all replaced? Wow! Better hurry now :/

"Copilot is generatin 40% of code in projects where it is installed" - is that any true, to start with something? What are these kind of projects?

Yes ok, but this is not very limiting and doesn't make this approach a ridiculous and failed one to start with, as the OP originally suggested and those languages which do it disprove already?

Why not? Making identation part of the syntax allows more for less?

Oooh these blind Americans, why did they rely so much on Russian gas, and didn't invest more in new green nuclear energy? Now a lot of them will freeze to death this winter :(

Yes and no.

No because Rusts bigger calling card is the borrow checker, which adds a lot of complexity besides other things in Rust, and even leads to justifying unsafe (because some optimized correct data structures are just not possible with it).

Second no, because if Rust calling card is that, you can have this alone even in the most hated unsafe C++ if you limit yourself and admit to doing it right. If you quote that sentence you must also quote his calling card, which is about culture and complexity of language:

> In addition to this, I think the most important reason we have so many vulnerabilities (and bugs in general) is completely disregarded in the hunt for “safe” code: culturally tolerated and even encouraged complexity14. In conclusion, putting up with Rusts compile times and submitting to the borrow checker seems like an extreme solution that doesn’t address the most important problem, which is a cultural one. Jai on the other hand is extremely concerned with complexity and tries to get the cultural part right.

And in that regard I agree with him, definitely better there than C/C++, BUT NOT MUCH!

That's why I fully agree, Rust may be not it, and something like Zig, Jai, Carbon or even Herb Sutters safec++2 thing may shine one day more..

Rust is overfocusing on the memory safety part, which adds too much complexity while not even being able to get fully rid of unsafe..

Please don't spoil the party. We have been lazy for so long and absolutely don't want to cut back on luxury or use the cleaner solutions that producing nuclear waste with expensive subsidies and all the other downsides is now cool again and full green! Big innovaton here, that counts!

You don't need to paint it black or white. Other jurisdications try it better imo - it is always and ever again amazing to see how in the US there is only one cause (very simplified: revenge/punishment here vs guilt and more in others), and that fully supported by most of the population (yes, admitted, by that it seems to be the right thing over here).

> widespread rehabilitation is impossible

Ah come on, that assumption is easily disproved by looking a bit around and elsewhere.

And some find staring into one's eyes and holding eye contact with strangers kind of aggressive :)

See the other responses for more, but would be curious how that discretion is completely lost when you want to proove something?

Geberally surprised about the false beliefs around anonimity on block chains, as soon as you have the right anchors they are the most tracable.

Or do you mean you sit at the doctor on your vacation, pull out an app to access your CT scan and hand it him over somehow or what is the use case here really? Seems so unrealistic on manu levels and much more easily realized with more solid tech, sorry?!

> Encrypted records can be easily added by any doctor/clinic as your public key is publicly available.

Yes, crypto101, which works fine without any blockchain?

Total disagree and not sure why you believe why any of those woukd have value added if on blockchain. Especially, health care records, wtf??

> I'd say that eye-contact is just one of those things you need to train for.

But for why and what if I'm not into martial arts? Just for social norms and studies that say only then I am really engaged and pay attention, which is definitely not true for me?

The other way round..

Debatable at least..

Sizing the hash map appropriately is one of the tuning knobs to usually achieve the O(1) desired complexity, in theory you are right, but tuning away from that in practice this does not or rare enough happens is the goal why you actually chose a hash map for hopefully close to O(1)?

You didn't want to understand me. Sure both use risk models, but exactly this still doesn't make them anyhow relatable? And sure I know still that everything is interconnected, but it is clear that if someone complains about fintech (but other arguments then immediately go into the "oh you say fintech, but what about .."), he doesn't mean the necessary stuff like payments processing or normal markets. anyway fine to disagree here ;)

> Yeah, they could have been working on something truly valuable like....

But why not just a reasonable product? Yes, what could that be, there cannot be something that is fairly priced and people really want, need, what just helps. Not today anymore!

> By your definition insurance

I know what you try there and on a very abstract level you are maybe slightly right, but PLEASE no, high level gambling (==milliseconds&millions) is not at all comparable to the insurance model in many regards, foremost maybe purpose for the community?

(and its pretty clear that fintech here sure doesn't mean the classical bank and modern "normal" payment system... ).

> It can be argued whether or not that’s the right thing to do

No, because both approaches could be right at a higher level, to pretake that decision at this level is definitely wrong here?!

Yes, why they made that decision back then. However in the end the lib cannot and shouldn't know, and this decision needs to be intentionally done by the middleware. Correct for most use cases is not good enough here, should be always correct for such fundamental thing.

No offense, but 2ft still will be constantly added to this, and where that is the significant difference and unless you call getting flooded twice a day non-constant flooding..... however I see noone living right in the tidelands right now.

Oh wow..

double wow to people seeing it like that.

:(

That is now how you phrase it! I think it is reasonable to assume as it is or most publications, that pictures and subheadings are intentionally chosen by the author and belong to the article (I mean no doubt about that here, these are not random pictures?) But again, why do we discuss that at all in relation to what GP said is the actuap question.

Also all "functional" programs have their state somewhere.. just usually much stricter isolated and manipulated - so no difference in statefulness.

> I would rather inherit someone's stateful JavaScript or Java than a complicated codebase by a seasoned Clojure, Haskell, Scala developer. I stand a better chance understanding the sequential code than a complicated recursive monad. Depending how it was written.

True, but you add here the "complicated" attribute deliberately .. usually it is the other way round. The functional approach code is simpler to read and reason ( and usually not with much recursive monoids), while the believed sequential program has so many "concurrent" paths (even if there is no real concurrency, but just in the many hidden ways how the super distributed statefulness is manipulated).. not?

100% true, only advertising that could be allowed is if the viewer intentionally wants and agrees to consumption.

(excuse a foggy brain)

Disgusting stance.

From climate catastrophe to treating other empathetic beings, as soon as there is beleive of any impact to our current luxuries (even if not even proven): Economy over all!

Humanity IS doomed. And deserved..

> What are you even talking about? The article never says they're lesbians.

Click on the first picture and you get the undertitle:

"Eadweard Muybridge first lesbian kiss Item x of 16 Eadweard Muybridge naked kiss women lesbian"

So even if not the photographer's statement or intention (though the article does also not clearly state the opposite..) and the article's author made thst up, it is like it is.

> You seen to be reading something that isn't in this article, and using the word "woke" in a bizarre way.

Those judgements are often seen quick and given easy, but not always as simple, eh??

Hell, why are we even discussing that??? Point for OP...

If that just be true for every tax group we would be in a much fairer world with less issues...