Drones with cameras and autopiloting systems will of course not be sold by American companies, at least not to civilians. America's police departments of course can freely purchase whatever they want.

The Rust standard library (std) currently guarantees multiple compilers in the same application so crates buildable on stable will always be buildable. Therefor std can't really fully deprecate API.

If Rust 1 (there will be no "2") then any bit of Rust code for stable should still build in the future. It has been demonstrated before that a program built against rust 1.0.0 can still be built. But what is left out that "experiment" is that team will all move to a newer version of Rust rather than keep multiple versions (rustup makes it easy though). And we have had to update code before because of this. The move to 1.80 being the most recent.

I guess if you want you can keep compilers for every version you need for building a large project. Certainly I prefer having the ability to install multiple compilers, even if only for transitioning subprojects one at a time to a new compiler, especially if unit tests might not pass after modifications were made. Long term, it would seem maddening. Having to code in rust 1.90 for one project, and then 1.30 for another. I think it would be pretty terrible for a large team to have to deal with that.

It's good to be the king.

Rust is incredibly powerful. And it makes a lot of sense for software companies to embrace it. On the other hand, any projects that aren't actively maintained will bitrot very quickly. Rust gets a new stable release every 6 weeks, and deprecating features that aren't working out or are superseded is a normal part of the process.

In comparison, I could pick some ISO/ANSI release of C and have it supported by native tools for decades. Picking C89 or C99 as a baseline, nearly every C compiler supports it now. Aiming for C11 or C17 for better 64-bit and Unicode support still gives you the possibility to support your application on a wide range of toolchains and runtimes. It is entirely possible that C isn't sufficient for your project, at least bare bones ISO C. You're often on the hook to maintain your own platform specific extensions. These might be pretty small for a command-line utility or back-end service like a relational database. Or platform specific libraries may be a huge pain in the neck like in game development.

I have an induction range and oven from Samsung. It has some wifi and smart bullshit in it. And it did indeed detect and work correctly when I first got it. But after a few phone upgrades the old app no longer works and the new version sort of detects my oven but won't add it.

Turns out, adding layers of complexity to your appliances makes the appliances less reliable. Luckily I can safely ignore the smart home features, although the time keeps resetting itself, I manually set it but somewhere internally it thinks it should be auto updating. None of the factory reset procedures seem to do anything and I've given up on it ever working the way it used to.

A grammar is so much prettier with semicolons as a separators and period as a terminator.

program := "PROGRAM" "NAME" '(' identifier_list ')' ';' block '.'
block := declaration_part statement_part
statement_part := "BEGIN" statement_sequence "END"
statement_sequence := statement { ';' statement }

It's not healthy to take everything so literally.

I guess I have to explain that the message was that extreme nationalism is ridiculous looking, no matter which side you are on. I prefer to aim someone in the middle instead of aligning myself with extremists.

We sell toy guns to children so they can grow up to be soldiers. Preferably blonde haired and blue eyed, and has a love of God and wants to kill communists.

English would benefit from adding Eth (Ðð), Thorn (þ), and Wynn (ƿ).
Perhaps adding OEthel(Œ) and e-acute (Éé) to that list, especially the latter to help identify when to pronounce /e/ versus it remaining silent.

In practice I don't anticipate anyone changing the alphabet we use for English because people HATE learning something new, especially if they already put the time in learning the old way. No amount of improvement to efficiency or accessibility is likely to convince the majority of people to change their ways.

These trends in writing and society do wax and wane. A plain style emerging in the Age of Enlightenment, a period with social movements that valued rationality. A more prosaic style can reemerge in a response to perception that such rationality can be too cold and austere, such as during the Romantic movement.

In our era we see commercial oriented speech dominating all communication. A style that communicates concisely while also misleading the reader. Modern writing styles attempt to engage the most basic needs and feeling in order to elicit an emotional reaction in the reader. Commercial speech does not want rationality. Disrupting the conscious decision-making process is the goal when it comes to getting a consumer to buy.

And because commercial speech dominates television, radio, and the Internet. We have generations of people in the West who from a very early age primarily experienced English as a language used to manipulate and sell them something.

Reading is for NERDS

That reminds me when I interviewed for a start-up that wanted to make any app that could do real-time translation of any language. And suggested that with noise cancelling headphones you wouldn't even notice the person spoke a different language.

And I'm sitting in their interview pitch thinking: that's now how German to English translation works. You often need to get pretty close to the end of the German sentence before you can even begin the English translation.

that you bothered to use uppercase characters in your post indicates you are far more civilized than your typical slashdotter

Possibly a solution, possibly not. UBI in general tends to be more effective the broader it is applied. Attempting to test it in an isolate sub-group of the population has inconsistent results.

Philosophically, I tend to lean more towards offering standardized services instead of giving money out and letting people compete in a poorly regulated free market for those necessities.

In the future I suspect we'll see a mix of solutions, rather than a one size fits all. With basic income for expenses that individual decision making is practical. Like food or housing. But perhaps not in situations where individual choice is not practical like in healthcare. Or where individual choice is extremely inefficient like public education. (children should go to a standardized school that is physically close to where they live. shipping everyone off in random directions is inefficient)

This article has motivated me to change up my punctuation preferences; you see: we hardly ever use the noble semi-colon; a punctuation that adds a wonderful dramatic pause; while connecting each sentences into a thought-stream; and only once the complete train of thought has been completed; shall we finally terminate with the ignoble full stop.