Most humans do. It can be difficult to find it though ;)

Then I hope yours won't be hurt by this little factoid- you're a fucking moron.

As someone who has had several 5-minutes-of-fame CVEs attributed to me, I can assure you that all programmers suck, particularly those wielding C. You're no exception. Neither am I. Despite 20 years of experience, and many hundreds of thousands of lines of C to my name doing work right now around the world.

I'm far from a Rust fanboi- I find the syntax revolting. I know a lot of that is personal taste, and that I'm old, and that's not going to change.
All that being said, it's simply undeniable that all code is going to have bugs, and a language that makes certain classes of bugs impossible is going to have less.

Remember, what matters are facts- not feelings.

Code proofs?
I assume you're referring to formal verification of a particular program.

You can't prove all software. That's literally saying the halting problem is solvable.
Formal verification of all software written would drop the world's aggregate code output to a few lines per day.

Of course programmers should avoid bugs. However, unlike whether any arbitrary program will halt, your statement that any programmer that doesn't isn't is provably false.

Every single thing in this post is wrong.
Well done, sir.

Rust can't save you from bad logic. In fact, in some cases, it may even encourage it with some of its difficult semantics.
That being said, LinuxBugs - CMemBugs + RustBugs < LinuxBugs.

But you can only answer in lisp

small overall difference? complete fucking horse shit.

Opus 4.7 is vastly better than DeepSeek 4.
That being said, DeepSeek 4 is cheaper, and it's open.
Not giving money to Dario is a great reason to burn a little more time using DS.

DS is dumber... like a lot dumber. It'll look at something and tell you, "the problem is X", when it's obviously not X. But if you keep throwing tokens at the problem, it will eventually figure it out.

No.
In one case you have an effective API between the two separate address spaces.
They are not comparable.

I'm not familiar with the exact implementations, but it's actually not hard to imagine a scenario where 1 is needlessly vulnerable, and 1 is not.

For the "secure" model,
What immediately comes to mind is a multi-process design (which I know that Chrome does use, but not to what extent).
The ability to read/decrypt passwords would be kept in a separate process from whatever handled rendering the website and runnings its javascript (since that's the most exposed to security challenges).
The head process would only feed passwords to worker processes when they had a reason to have them.

For the insecure model- single process. Done.
Any compromise (or even the ability to leak locally mapped memory) of the renderer or javascript engine means easy access to all passwords.

Hah, I'd definitely agree it's probably recommended practice by any legitimate (my definition, not the DEAs) practitioner.

The normal rules require an in-person visit, but the post-COVID rules (extended again this year) allow for telehealth "visits", even to receive scheduled drugs- at least that's what I've been led to believe.

That's been my overall take of the situation with the guys I know.

I have no doubt there's a legitimate practice in there for people with legitimate problems. Ketamine is serious shit. You can really fuck yourself up with it, permanently, if you misuse it. Actual doctor supervision seems like a good idea if you give a fuck about your life.

Ya, absolutely. IVs are almost guaranteed to be administered by a physician.

Home care (for us normies) are tabs and lozenges. I have several friends doing it completely legally (Telehealth is still a wild concept to me- who'd have thought you could ship Schedule 3 drugs to some guys house legally). It's all the rage, currently.
I've even heard tell of nasal sprays becoming a thing for it.

What I said was entirely accurate based upon my reading of the ambiguity.
Any "authoritative sound" you gleaned from my words is a psychological dysfunction of yours, not a problem with my words.

An assertion was made, it was interpreted, and it was responded to- correctly- in kind.
They meant something else, which invalidated the response. It's that simple.

So yes, you are the fucking stupid one.

Not one Democrat in a position of power to do anything about it has ever advocated for anything approaching "open borders."
Controlled immigration is not "open borders."
Belief that a wall is bad policy is not "open borders".

I'm not going to try to gaslight you into believing that there aren't people who believe in "open borders", but it's very much not at all a mainstream thought. It's a conservative bogeyman.

I can't help but think that you are basically calling any policy that isn't racist as fuck "open borders", because there is no fucking real-world analog.

It definitely takes a truly fucking bizarre person to take Musk at his word.
Brockman doesn't earn any favors in "trustability" from me, but still- he's not a known "Musk-level" pathological liar.