What class of bugs are talking about? Nothing in modern C and C++ standards do much to prevent memory access bugs, which are still the leading cause of exploitable bugs in all the surveys I've seen. Improved tooling like AddressSanitizer have greatly decreased the number of memory access bugs in my C/C++ code from getting to production, but some still do in my code, and in other large C/C++ code bases that I know are using best practices.

Rust eliminates those entirely, except in unsafe blocks which I rarely need, and can more carefully scrutinize and test when needed.

Rust doesn't do as much to avoid integer over/underflow bugs which are the next biggest class of bugs.

> Let me know when Rust has an ISO standard so multiple vendors can make compliant compilers.
Irrelevant for the kernel given how many GCC-specific features they are dependent on. The main reason that you can now compile the kernel with clang is because clang support for those extensions has improved.

> Let me know when a Rust "Hello, world" is under a megabyte
Easy, pass the flags to dynamically link the standard library (like C does by default), and strip symbols, and hello world is ~16K. That is pretty much the same size as GCC produces for a C version of hello world after you strip the symbols.

> It doesn't solve any problems, it just pushes awareness to the coding phase.
Eliminating bugs in development instead of integration or worse production is a solution to my problems.

Wikipedia isn't exactly a uninvolved party here. An organization's choice about what forms of payment it takes is entirely it's prerogative.

SpaceX chose methane as the fuel for Starship in part because it can be synthesized from carbon-dioxide, water and solar panels. They pretty much have to do this to fuel any return trips from Mars, and plan on maturing the technology by using it to produce fuel for their terrestrial launches.

Here is a confirmation tweet. There are many more detailed articles if you search for them.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/s...

Propellants have to handled on earth before the can be used in space. Many of the current hypergolic propellants are quite nasty and deadly.

In addition, any greenhouse gases created during the production of propellants is released in the earth's atmosphere. Currently that is a negligable drop in the bucket, but if we were to scale up space access to the levels that Space X and Impulse would like to see, then it will become non-negligible. So it is good if the technologies that create economics of scale, are not environmentally detrimental at scale.

I subscribe to the maybe top 10 sites I visit, but there is a huge long tail of useful sites that I visit infrequently or even just once that need some way to pay for their expenses, and three decades into the www, we still have no good way to do so.

There is no good micropayment system. All the options have high payment processing overhead, and poor privacy - either requiring me to share strong identity information directly with the site I'm paying, or letting some third party have information about every site I support (or worse every site I browse), or both. And the cryptocurrency folks have priorities and values that so far have been incompatible with making a system that is actually useful as currency.

Simply banning all tracking and targeted advertising, and going back to passive advertising targeted to the site's demographics, not a specific person, would work just fine for large sites. NYT did it and fared well - but NYT readers are themselves a valuable demographic worth targeting. Some random blog not so much - they would almost certainly see their ad revenue plummet in such a scenario.

I'm in favor of pretty strict privacy legislation, actively take technical measures to protect my privacy in the meanwhile, and will continue to support those actions even if they have negative consequences to the sites I visit. But what I really want is to have some way to support sites that doesn't violate my privacy. This proposal is less bad than the alternatives.

More thoughts. On (3) I'd be okay with a compromise approach where the browser *suggests* categories based on my browsing habits, and I can approve or disapprove.

5) I must be allowed to use plugins to selectively choose whether to expose this API to websites on a case-by-case basis. Even if Google and other legitimate site were to refrain from tracking in lieu of using this API, there will be other malicious sites that just use it to add more bits to the fingerprinting they are already doing.

Yeah, I'm not opposed to advertising, or even targeted advertising, just all the invasive surveillance that surrounds it. I might be persuaded to use something like this, on a few conditions:
1) It should be opt-in not opt-out.
2) I must be able to trust that any advertising domains that participate in this program don't do any other sort of tracking. I shouldn't have to exempt Google's top-level domains in order to participate in this program, like I currently have to do to allow captcha's to work. Otherwise I will not exempt them from my ad/tracking blocker.
3) I should be able to disable the automated learning, and select my own categories of interest. I don't like the system tracking me, regardless of whether my browser is doing it or the websites are. I don't want to have to think about needing to switch to private browser mode anytime I browse somewhere I don't want this system to be learning.
4) The API must be open, and available to any website I browse to use, not just Google's advertising network.

I haven't looked into whether 3 and 4 are already true or not. I don't know what would convince me on point 2, short of privacy laws that give teeth to the program. Eg start with this program being voluntary, then make the current forms of tracking/surveillance illegal so that systems like this are the only legal option.

See this comment that explains exactly what happened: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

No kidding. Those are completely standard markup rates for retail. This amounts to "Amazon marks up third party products enough to make a profit", which is a complete non-story. Amazon may well have exploitative business practices with its third party sellers, but you wouldn't learn it from this article.

The only legitimate complaint I saw was over the MFN clause of the Fair Pricing Policy which I agree is an antitrust concern in many if not most cases.

I had read somewhere that the illuminators didn't have the same dot patterns on every phone, which was part of the reason why the illuminator needed to be paired. Never looked into the validity of that claim though.

From a security perspective it makes perfect sense that the FaceID illuminator (and possibly camera) needs to be paired to the processor. However there is no reason for the display to be involved in that. The only reason this is necessary is because they chose to route the illuminator communications through the same chip as the display controller. Apple could have chosen a different design that doesn't make replacing the most fragile and frequently broken part of the phone a security sensitive operation. They did that in the past for the iPhoneX, iPhone11 and iPhone12 which all had FaceID and which could all have their screens replaced without Apples approval.

So, no security isn't an excuse here. This is at best a poor design decision, and at worst a deliberate move to shutout third-party repair shops.

I'm surprised I haven't seen a single macho man wearing a bandana as a mask in the stores during the pandemic. I see them wearing them on motorcycles on dusty days, and as headbands any time. This is your one chance in life to walk around like a bandito without a store clerk asking you to remove it!

The FTC didn't lose the case. It was dismissed without prejudice. The idea is that the if a case is dismissed early enough in the processes and for mostly procedural or technical reasons, then the defendant never actually stood trial for their charges, and double jeopardy doesn't apply. One way to look at it was that the case was deferred, and thus the main concern is the right to a speedy trial, not double jeopardy.

If a judge does think the prosecutor or plaintiff is acting in bad faith, then they can dismiss with prejudice, which does prevent refiling, to address the sort of harassment that you mention.

NASA will only have to wait for the litigation to complete if the judge issues a preliminary injunction requiring it. Given how cut and dry the GAO's decision against BO is, I find that highly unlikely.