So you're claiming that firing someone is a breach of contract??

It's likely that you'd have to be under the business relationship part of tortious interference, not the contractual part. Termination of an employee for many different reasons is not a breach of the a contract (see the penultimate item.) And truth seems to be a defense against the business relationship variant. See, all negative reviews, etc.

You may be right, now that 99% of the world has the vaccine. But before polio was eradicated it was a pretty horrible thing. If mass vaccinations stop, then it will make a comeback.

Look, if only one person doesn't vaccinate, it is indisputably good for them. A vaccine has a low chance of hurting them, but if the literal rest of the planet is vaccinated then they won't get the disease. The problem is, when a bunch of people think like that, measles, which was almost wiped out, starts having fucking epidemics again.

Vaccines can cause harm. And not vaccinating your child will likely not cause them harm, because everyone else vaccinates. But it's a free rider problem. Which is one that government is really good at helping with. Look, a 1/100 chance of getting polio vs. a 1/10000000 chance of suffering brain damage is a real tradeoff (temporarily accepted this premise for arguments sake). And the brain damage choice is objectively the better one. The question is, can you get both because everyone else is vaccinated.

The more the compiler can protect me from past-me, the better. And certainly from my coworkers.

Look, I don't get how Rust deals with circular references at all (screw you, leak, I think). But the way to train better coders is to get them up on standards. Why you wouldn't want those standards enforced by the compiler I have no idea.

I read the Rust documentation (what 1/2 or 1/4 or something of it there was). Okay ideas, but not terribly interesting. But if I could snap my fingers and code that didn't meet the coding standard I used wouldn't compile. That would be amazing.

The new employer isn't who I was referring to. She took a job that required 24/7 availability, while remaining at NetSpend to collect benefits. It's highly likely that NetSpend had an anti-moonlighting clause, and, since her termination was based on her taking another job, certainly had the expectation. But NetSpend was the victim.

The second employer is accused of tortious interference. I'm not quite sure what the wrongful act would be? Certainly not hiring her... we hold that to be fine. And notifying someone is most certainly not a a false claim, which is what would be required for a tortious interference with a business relationship. (see, wikipedia, article you referenced)

I don't like the tracking. But this is being really misrepresented.

Absent special circumstances, probably relating to reducing read times or page considerations, you wouldn't want to do a deep copy on the immutable object. Some languages (C# for sure, maybe others) have a pretty good attribute system you can write metacode against. Hopefully that will come to C++ soon.

But in C#, you can tag the whole class Default_To_Deep_Copy, and then a single property Shallow_Copy (syntax invented.) I don't know if there is already a framework to do that, but if not there's certainly the ability to write metacode that does.

I totally agree that there are bugs that are equivalent to the halting problem. I don't follow how aliasing is one of them. It seems as if any of the various paradigms that transfer ownership, such as auto and weak pointers solve that issue with 100% accuracy at the cost of freedom.

If so, how do you tell it what stuff should be deep copied and what shouldn't?

Well, the metaprogramming improvements from, for example, C# could handle that. It defaults to a shallow copy, buy each class could have an optional "deep copy" attribute that change s the behavior.

It most certainly is reducible to the halting problem. And given sufficient constraints it is possible to solve halting problem. I doubt eliminating IPC to eliminate mutual-exclusion deadlocks is one of those constraints. But I have no doubt that there is some bundle of features that are allowable, and having IPC at all requires accepting other constraints. Heck, branching requires accepting other constraints.

There's no mention that a lawyer didn't. And it's reasonable to assume that either a lawyer at her employer or at Xora gave assurances it was legal.

And of course the complaint alleges it's illegal. A complaint has to do that.

But, when you read the complaint, there are some ridiculous things alleged. For instance, one of the things she's suing over is that, in addition to firing her, they contacted her other employer. Well, if you accept an all-call position from one employer while working for another one, that seems to be a fair thing to point out to the one who was getting screwed over. Petty, but fair.

She's asking for five+ years of wages as actual damages, plus non-economic damages. That seems like a lot to me over a few months in the job.

Look, I'm all for legislation that gives more rights to employees. I just didn't see anything that implied that any specific existing law was being violated.

So they've solved the halting problem?

Two big issues with what you said:

Most bugs aren't detectable by solving the halting problem. It literally just covers infinite loops. The bugs they're talking about are far more subtle.

Second, given sufficient constraints on the program being generated, the halting problem is solvable.

When has a GOTO ever been correct? I've used GOTO's in production code. I've always felt dirty about it, as if it was an error in my youth (but I no longer have access to the source). Please help assuage my conscience.

C++ doesn't restrict programmers regarding what they can or cannot use.

C++ doesn't, but every reasonably large project has coding standards that do. I've often wanted to have a language that wouldn't compile unless it met my standards...

Well, they almost certainly know more about computer vision and AI. Traffic laws? Who knows.

They provided her a tracking device that *also* worked as a phone. It was the companies phone.