The point people keep making about Rust is that it's memory safe. Except for the large flashing issue in the room, that it is not memory safe, objectively, it has a keyword, to disable the safety. This is black and white, if Rust is memory safe, so is C, you could avoid pointers, overflows, underflows, and all the other ways to corrupt memory, and by the logic of Rust developers, that's memory safety. I'm not suggesting anything major, just drop the idea of memory safety, or, remove any ability to interact directly with memory, in a way you could corrupt it.

I asked ChatGPT, and it's making the same argument that I'm making: “https://chatgpt.com/share/6aa807d4-b858-83ea-8fb1-b8fe5dbb6c16”, it's memory safe, with qualification, which means it's not memory safe. The qualification point is a big point, just so we're on the same page, the problem I have with the claim of memory safety, is that it convinces bad programmers they have that safety net when they don't.

I've seen this time and time again where a language has a feature, such as “memory safety”, or “type safety”, but then the developer uses “any” instead of a type, and thinks their type safe. I had a Jr Dev submit code full of $any() in the HTML of an Angular application. He then explained to me, it was safe since Typescript has type checking, therefore, $any() is a good workaround to building a proper type and interface for what he was doing.

Either learn to program and develop code safety, making yourself the first line of defence for mistakes, and they happen, and once you're sure the code is functioning at near 100%, then you can rely on the “memory safety” or “type safety”, or “X”. The idea that Rust makes things safer or more trusted is nonsense, it might be a very capable language, but the safety, and the trust is based on the developers / engineers, not the language.

When you have to write safe code, that is used for automotive, or military, you can't use pointers, function pointers, or the cool new features of most languages. The code has to be simple, basic, and clean; otherwise they don't certify it, even if you can write the code safety, and assure all paths have full cleanup and checking being done, you still can't use pointers. Maybe this has relaxed in the last 10-years, but 10-years ago that was the standard I had to write code to, for our two military clients.

âoeThis? This is Slashdot. This is what happens to people when they get too sexually frustrated.â

Out of fairness, I'm not opposed to that idea. There are some books I have never tried to revisit; however, I have tried with an open mind to read some works again, and my opinion didn't change enough to sway my overall view. You're pointing out one of the point I raised, the audience is wrong for these works, which is why kids don't continue to read. This is why free choice the route schools should take.

People pay $20 for a hotdog all the time. Buy a "gourmet" hotdog in a high cost area sometime and you'll see what I mean. Nobody pays $5 per minute plus $5 per kWh to use an EV charger. That is blatant price gouging. You can call the victim of this highway robbery an idiot, but in fact he was driving a rental and probably had no idea what he was doing. I guess you feel that being unfamiliar with EV charging norms is license to rip off the customer.

You go ahead and double down. I'm on the side of the victim. I hope the local DA makes the owner of the charger sweat a little since Michigan has consumer protections that make this kind of behavior illegal.

I guess you would be happy to pay $420 to charge a Chevy Bolt since the prices aren't jacked up, then. Crises or not, many states will prosecute over this behavior. it's illegal in Michigan where this asshole's business is. See section Z of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.

I don't know where the "desperation" excuse has materialized among this dealership's supporters. This was naivete. Someone else pointed out another charger was listed a couple miles away on the EVGO app .

And kindness is not to advertise a charger as public and proceed to rip off the people who try to use it. I have a privately owned L2 charger installed in my garage. Since it's not public, am I telling people who are desperate for a charge to fuck themselves too?

That really gets to the core of the issue, why doesn't the teacher, professor, or whatever want to discuss the book? Even if you disagree wholeheartedly with the theme / plot, you need to be open as an educator.

That could easily lead into a very dark place, and if that happened, that's a different topic, but for the most part, just keep it open.

Yes, you could write your program to not use it, but, how about all the libraries, and tooling? Unless your entire chain / stack is free from any unsafe keywords, it's basically useless. Even if your stack has no use of “unsafe”, the fact “unsafe” exists at all, destroys the concept of memory safety. If Rust is going to claim memory safety, without being memory safe, why not just claim anything at all? Rust is the only language that can make mythical unicorns real, it's just as valid a statement as being memory safe, in that it's a completely false statement.

Fine, if we're not going to agree, fair enough, have a great week!

Just to be clear, at no point is one kids kissing another kid they think is dead?

Kids do like to learn, I have two daughters in high school, and they have a large group of friends. Everyone likes to learn, they just hate the way everything is taught, and when they object they're silenced on the spot as being idiots, or not understanding why things are taught that way. The math curriculum is a good example of this, they removed the fundamentals, the tested and true mythologies that have been shown to work, in favour of some common core Canadian nonsense. There has been so many times when the examples don't work. Not subjectively, objective, I've written textbook authors asking why the questions, and examples are broken, and in almost all the cases, the textbooks are misprinted. It's been over a dozen times when the examples are missing steps, and so the kid is left confused and think they've misunderstood something.

As for the other point, it matters that you read, and that you can explore the literary landscape to find what you enjoy. Once you find what you enjoy, you'll likely want to enjoy it more, and that's what schools and teachers should be encouraging. I don't mind if a kid wants to read a book about sport stats, if they enjoy it, let them enjoy it, and promote similar works for them. You can still have, I don't know, 25% of the reading assignments as the classics, but make the vast majority open, self-driving exploratory reading. Do it without bias, and with open discussion, and you'll see this turn around.

I actually agree with that, based on your last statement. Give kids the freedom of choice, and I think you solve many problems. I have two kids in secondary school, and they're also in the reading club. Last night they showed me the “approved reading list”, approved reading list, as in, they have to pick books based off that list, and I think you understood that, to be fair. They're in a reading club, but still can't pick what they want to read, why?

It's not even that they can't pick what they would like to read, It's that if they criticize the list, they're regarded as literary morons, who shouldn't be given the chance to read. I still remember the treatment from high school, from the English teachers. “You don't like Shakespeare! Gasp.”, “No, I think the works are boring, and rather grossly inappropriate, especially seeing as when I brought a book in that had objectively more appropriately themes, I couldn't read it.”. “No, I don't like The Great Gatsby, it's terribly written, has a horrible plot and theme, that is so thin, that you'd have to simpleton to find it anything but horrible.”.

Crab: “An alcoholic goes camping.”, that's really the entire book, a kid with a drinking issue, goes camping. The Kay: “A white kid is stranded with an older black dude, and goes blind for a period.”, not leaving much out of that, there was some more to it, to be fair, but it doesn't add a lot. I've given my objective review of R&J many times, there's a video where a teenager is topless in it, and somehow that is considered acceptable viewing a high school English class. I think in that video the directory got sued for exploitation.

There a book last year that was by a Native American author, that the kids had to read. My daughter thought it was boring, poorly written, and dry. When she pointed that out to the teacher, the teacher was taken-a-back with disgust. Why didn't the teacher take her opinion as a talking point, and open discussion? Still have them read it, still have them read the classics, but, given them enough freedom that the classics make up, I don't know, 25% of the reading assignments, and let the other 75% be self-driven, with an open mind, and open discussion.

It's objectively CSAM, one kid has a make out session with another kid, they think is dead. What do you call that? I would call it CSAM, or, pseudo-necro-paedophilia, or csam-necro-pedophile, or any combination that clearly points out one kids, was having a fucking making out session with another kid they thought was dead. If you don't recognize that, and flag it as a serious problem, what do you want me to say? When you go to a funeral, do you think: I'm going to have a fun night of hot sex with the corpse?

This is an objective take, everyone knows the story, it all boils down to one kid having there way with another kid they think is dead. If you read that and think it's literary gold, you're essentially admitting what you're into. If you want to try to explain why that's not disgusting and inappropriate, please go ahead. You'll keep falling into the issue that one kid is frenching another kid they think is dead, and you can't get away from that.

There is nothing about my argument that suggests kids aren't into learning because they don't like the “classics”, the entire argument is the classics have failed to instill a love of reading. The stereotype is that kid who hates the classics, but, if that has been happening for decades, among a large population of kids, then maybe the kids have a point. What is a kid meant to take from books that lack character development, plot development, and interesting themes?

If a kid doesn't like a classic work, figure out why, and don't brush it off as if they're against learning, education or reading. It's time to kill the classics, they've proven time and time again they don't hold attention, they lack quality, and they're not worth the paper used to print them. Let kids have true open reading time, and open reading selection, let the kids pick the books, and figure out what they want to read. Kids don't enjoy reading because what's offered isn't worth reading.

Maybe, 1% of kids enjoy the classics, hell, I'll go to 20% of the kids like the classic, that would still be 80% don't, and if the vast majority don't like what's offered, then education failed.

The problem here is that when you turned on the TV for the first time and clicked the 'I accept' button, you agreed to the recording, and probably agreed that you'd be responsible for letting anybody else who might be in range of the TV know that they're subject to recording.

Is that going to hold up in court? Who knows, but can you afford to spend the money to find out? Somebody eventually will, and you'll get a coupon for twenty bucks off of a new TV as the settlement.

That's not a comparable example, you don't review reports, policies, and licenses for enjoyment or to instill a love of reading such things, you do it because you have to. Schools need to change, stop giving kids terrible, inexcusable piles of crap to read, insist they have to love them, and give them open reading choices, and you might see this reverse. Why stop a kid from reading something? It's not relevant what it is, if a kid wants to read it, let them, and have honest discourse about it, regardless as to what you feel. Again, if you're a black teacher and a kid brings in novels about a fictional KKK group that commits acts of violence, and hate, you should let them. You should be prepared to have a real discussion, and be open to the ideas, regardless to your feelings.

It's time to discontinue the “classics”, they've failed. How many kids have to point out the books are boring, poorly written, lack plots or themes of interest, before the system wakes up? The Great Gatsby is not going to become a good novel for the vast majority of kids who are forced to read it. The same is true for most of the reading assignments kids are given. All you're doing is showing them crap gets giving a gold stamp of approval, and to steer clear of it.

What would happen if a kid points out that R&J is basically a play for people who are csam-necro-enthusiasts? Would a teacher respect that view, point out that one kid making out with another they believe to be dead, is disgusting, or, would they blame the kid for not liking Shakespeare? I can tell you what will happen, the kid will get blamed for misunderstand the point, which they didn't. If kids have been pointing out for decades that the reading assignments are trash, poorly written nonsense, that aren't worth the paper they're printed on, listen to them.

The thing about kids missing the point, did they miss the point? I've had a teacher argue me about R&J in grade 10, I didn't miss the point, she was into necro-csam, sorry she can't admit it. It's not beautiful, it's literally a story about csam, dressed up to make it socially acceptable.