No, this isn’t the way to interpret this. Rust has been very successful not just in appearing safer, but actually delivering safety over C. The sense of safety was almost entirely real. Just some situations it didn’t cover.
67 karma · joined September 25, 2022
I’m suggesting that the way you build an app is shaped by the prevalence of NAT, the same way the apps you build are shaped by how much bandwidth home users have for devices.
Some types of apps benefit from p2p functionality, and those hit obstacles for normal users due to port forwarding requirements, and are largely impossible which CG. I don’t think NAT is a villain, just something that does affect what and how we build stuff.
I love paint.net. Recently purchased a windows store license for it. Clearly a winner for most of the image editing needs I have, for things like basic cropping, dpi changes, or changing formats. I treat it like I did GraphicConverter on Mac. Just a beloved image tool.
Lately I’ve been using it for simple file conversion with roll20, to hand-tune my assets for small downloads with webp.
Also, lots of major rust projects depend on async for their design characteristics, not just for the significant performance improvements over the thread-based alternatives. These benefits are easy to see in just about any major IO-bound workload. I think the widespread adoption of async in major crates (by smart people solving real world problems) is a strong indicator that async is a language feature that is "actually useful".
The fight is mostly on hackernews and reddit, and mostly in the form of people who don't need async being upset it exists, because all the crates they use for IO want async now. I understand that it isn't fun when that happens, and there are clearly some real problems with async that they are still solving. It isn't perfect. But it feels like the split over async that is apparent in forum discussions just isn't nearly as wide or dramatic in actual projects.
As other have suggested, compaction is potentially needed to transport waste from the deeper parts. But there are several security considerations of just ejecting trash as-is from a high security area. I imagine a trash compactor is also a way to destroy the trash to prevent the old “spy tosses a data device into the prisoner cell block waste chute and have his allies follow the death star to pick it up during ejection”.
The privacy issue is that your local WiFi provider, direct isp, and all the intermediate isps can see not only which site you visit, but all your activity within that site (like which pages you visit or things you download).
The security part is that any of those who can view can also do a “man in the middle” attack. Comcast could decide to send you a different version of the website that was more favorable to their company, or inject ads (ISPs have been known to inject ads on sites they don’t own before https was big).
A hacker could send you a version that gets you to download malware by replacing content or links. They can see and effect everything you do and see in such a site if they can intercept your request.
Worse, many are getting deeper into the CG NAT on IPv4 with possibly no ipv6 available. Combined with households having more people and devices needing the internet from the same router than ever before, makes it less likely someone is just going to figure out how to forward a port.
Sure, there are some workarounds, but the real failure here is in not moving to ipv6 and fiber fast enough to support any p2p tech. There’s basically zero generations that ever had p2p ready internet.
My perception was that she thought she was getting pushback from climate groups when she said that free will didn’t exist, and that this groups were effectively accusing her of being opposed to climate action, on the basis of of them thinking their free will was the only way to fix climate change.
If you give a plaintext file to a friend for safe keeping, the friend can see the file. You could encrypt the file, but encrypting a file requires a key or password, which you could forget or lose.
The idea here is: split the file into three parts. Give one part to the bank deposit box, one to a friend, and put one in a safe at home. Now, if you want to restore the original, nobody can restore without getting (for example) two of the three pieces.
This is nice because your friend and the bank can’t do anything with their copies alone, and won’t trust each other with their copy normally. But if you lose your piece, you can still ask the friend and the bank for theirs.