IIRC QNX can deliver a POSIX environment in ~32kiB of RAM (kernel + process manager). Why would that have a "negative appeal"?
Are you joking? Ada is easy to understand because it was designed to be. It is verbose and partially redundant by design as that is known to 1) increase understanding of programs 2) decreases some types of common errors.
Pascal wasn't really designed for ease of use (even though it is), one big problem is the use of semicolon as a separator: it isn't always obvious where they should go and misplaced semicolons can generate errors.
Oh there's a need. Koreans are routinely used as a lower caste worker often in near slave conditions. (near = they are _theoretically_ free to leave)
True, and here I have no mod points
That isn't how quantum computation work.
Josephson junctions are used daily all over the world so I don't understand your point. There's nothing called a Josephson gate - however one can use Josephson junctions to form gates of different forms - RSFQ and RQL are the most common at the moment.
The reason we don't use computers based on JJ are many - semiconductor logic is well known and very cheap, I'll include III - V semiconductors here even though they are much more expensive than silicon based logic they are still cheaper than superconductive wafers. There still isn't a good type of memory working at the temperatures required. The processes available aren't as good either, 1m and 6 metal layer (4 effective - 2 are used as superconductive ground planes) is the state of the art AFAIK.
There already are systems that are anonymous and secret - look into some digital money designs.
The problem isn't technical - it is a social one: how to ensure nobody gets pressured to vote for somebody. Allowing a user to vote several times and making the last vote count help a bit however it isn't enough...
We need it because that isn't what Rust is about - it is about making safe programming the default and making some common errors in other languages (like dangling pointers) impossible. And doing that while still being useful for systems programming and supporting high performance.
Igniting magnesium isn't easy. IME igniting titanium is much easier. Aluminium burns well too (in fact it is often used as rocket fuel in pulverized form). And most steels can be made to burn with some effort.
But we aren't talking about pure magnesium, we are talking about some specific alloy. Some additives are know to reduce fire hazards, one of which is calcium (itself a very reactive metal).
And we are talking about product development - and you have to be pretty arrogant to think they don't know how to do their work. They do.
The Itanium could "natively" run x86 code using dedicated hardware. The Elbrus design used a software translation system instead.
Later versions of the Itanium changed to a software translation layer which not only removed some hardware, it also accelerated x86 code execution speed. But x86 compatibility is still architectural in Itanium - not for Elbrus.
Hardware isn't always better.
Not really comparably as the infrastructure for video streaming have to be considerably larger in storage/network bandwidth and also distributed geographically to avoid bottlenecks.
Not to mention that Youtube actually pay for some of its content.
Remember that the actual content is produced free of charge by volunteers. Are 230 employees needed for infrastructure maintenance and development?
According to the designers the Elbrus design is better than the Itanium. I personally don't really doubt that given the amount of problems the Itanium design have.
It is using the Elbrus architecture which is a variant of the EPIC* architecture (like that of the Intel/HP Itanium). This is a variant of the Elbrus 2000 design which was much hyped.
(* EPIC = explicit parallel instruction coding, more comparable with VLIW designs than CISC/RISC ones)