veltas

The difference between infinities is I can write every possible fraction on a piece of A4 paper, if the font gets smaller and smaller. I can say where to zoom in for any fraction.

I can't do that for real numbers.

My point is these societies have the rule of law, and the vast majority of laws don't have a "unless you have 50 employees or less" or "unless your revenue is under $1 mil" qualifier. The difference in treatment is often a complex precedent of leniency in enforcement or punishment, but ultimately the rules are the same for everyone, even if you have to upset the 8 year old selling lemonade.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/asa-baker-...

In almost every developed country the rules are exactly the same. No hairnet, no licence? Lemonade Stand Ltd can and will be shut down. The main difference is lenience in punishment which tends to tail off and disappear at the lemonade stand scale, and be stricter for large multinationals.

I wish you were right though.

Regulation is a moat designed by and benefitting big corporations. Removing it for small businesses specifically would actually be fair.

They just don't work, they blind me all the time reflecting off of side mirrors or just don't detect that you're in the zone at all.

The problem is the road visibility doesn't need to be 'better', it just needs to be 'visible'.

We went from the road is visible to everyone, to the road is only visible to some people because the rest of us don't have ultra bright lights and are getting blinded.

I have to do a lot of night driving and often find myself putting my hand out in front of the side mirror to prevent pain in my eyes.

It's particularly jarring to basically every site I've seen it on which is usually some serious and professional looking open source site.

I wonder why nobody configures this, is this not something that they can configure themselves to a more relevant image, like the GCC logo or something?

> cheap VAXen roamed the land

I'm stealing this

Everything they're asking for my head was just screaming the whole time "this is a web browser".

What I said is a very general statement that broadly applies to all civilised countries, reiterated because the parent comment was very incorrect suggesting that rights are mainly protecting citizens from their state in the US. It's simply not true.

Obviously the rights that the state grants are different in the US than Europe, but the rights of individuals are protected versus other individuals, corporations, and general organisations; just as they are in all civilised countries. To the extent you can have famous cases where people sue large coffee franchises for selling coffee that's too hot.

So the statement that "the whole concept of rights in the US are, in the main, about restricting what the federal government and states can do individuals" is far from reality, and I felt it necessary to ground this conversation back in reality.

I don't agree with that at all. If anyone else tries to infringe your rights it's either voluntary i.e. you've consented to this, or it's involuntary in which case you can sue them or the state will prosecute them on your behalf.

In the quote it sounds like they're conflating veganism and vegetarianism.

I'm guessing in those kinds of situations it doesn't matter about the arch given x86 and ARM also aren't ISO standards. The manufacturers however should comply with relevant quality standards.

No overflow/carry flag impacting safe overflow checking and bignum performance, the whole conditional move history and backpeddling and state of Zicond, the system for describing feature support is needlessly complicated and just a mess for users outside of embedded, the spec is written more like an academic paper than a CPU manual, vector instructions act like they're written for a coprocessor for some reason, bad frame pointer ABI support, etc.

RISC-V has always been an ivory tower, with a lot of bad decisions they double down on. Not surprised they're rushing towards this outdated stamp of authority too.

Says that, but I don't agree with that. If anything it would have been less successful being picked up in discount markets if the specs weren't free for download, and I don't know what fringes they're trying to break into but probably none of them care whether the spec is ISO.

Automatically translating C to unsafe Rust is pointless, the resultant code is harder to read and there's no improvement in understanding how to get the code maintainable and safe, that requires tons of manual work by someone with a deep understanding of the codebase.

Generally the Rust community as well don't seem to have an answer on how to do this incrementally. In business terms we have no idea how to do work slices with demonstrable value, so no way to keep this on track and cut losses if it becomes too much work. This also strongly indicates you're 'stuck' with Rust when you're done, maybe a better and less unidiomatic C++ killer comes later and sounds like you're either going to have to rewrite the whole thing or give up.

I'm definitely open to wisdom on this if anyone disagrees because it is valuable to me and probably most of the readers of this comment section.

I hope this experimental language becomes usable eventually, all I hear is how you have to continuously rewrite to work around the borrow checker, accept worse performance to make everything message based, or just ignore the type system and write VB6-style code where everything is indexes in arrays to obfuscate ownership and paste 'unsafe' when it moans.

What is wrong with let?

100%, life's too short.

Ultra-pedantic const-correctness (vs tasteful const-correctness on e.g. pass-by-reference arguments or static/big objects) catches nearly no bugs in practice and significantly increases the visual noise of your code.

If you have luxury of designing a new language or using one with default mutability then do so, but don't turn C coding styles into C++-envy, or C++ coding styles into Rust-envy.

Yep and you can really tell on certain shades of grey when the screen is mysteriously flickering. Thanks Dell.

Surely dithering is good enough to display 10-bit colour on a non-10-bit monitor with good colour.

The banding disappears and the noise introduced by dithering should hide the lack of depth completely to human eyes.

So a modern use for graphical dithering. And I'm sure there's more. It's not all for retro art.

You're glossing over the "just rewrite everything in Rust" part.

Not for simple collaboration or modification, which is most of what you want to do. But yes any serious development is difficult in Forth, period.

Can't exactly change existing widespread practice so they're ready for that kind of handling.

Have you tried collaborating with Forth? There's a lot of documented history of people doing so in industry when it was actually used, and more recently I've usually found Forth codebases approachable and easy to follow.

Personally I think this is the pay-off for writing the code in the first place because Forth is very difficult to write in a clear way, if you actually manage to do it you've probably made it very clear to follow because otherwise it's hard to finish your project and make it work at all.

Not that obvious when some tax payers will pay for new energy infrastructure and then also watch their prices go up because it wasn't built near them.

For anyone interested in this debate about working in 'secrecy' vs 'out in the open', this is the subject of the 1997 essay (and later book) "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond, comparing the classic free software development models vs the model used by the Linux kernel.