If your developers are incapable of making errors, then I'd like to know what species they are.

We have this crap every time Rust comes up, that somehow there are perfect C programmers out there who never introduce memory safety bugs. You know who I wouldn't trust to ever write a C program I use in production? Someone who thinks there are perfect C programmers out there who never introduce memory safety bugs. There is no such thing as a perfect programmer.

I look at projects like curl because I have huge admiration for how they're managed. They've made memory safety bugs throughout, and spend a lot of time actually trying to figure out how to prevent them in the future. And they do still make them! But over time they've created processes that at least reduce the number considerably, going as far as to rewrite standard C library functions to prevent common errors.

THAT is the type of C programmer I admire. Not someone who claims that they've never made a memory safety bug. Those people are liars. But people who actually take the time to find ways to reduce common types of error, including memory safety.

You know what those people do a lot? They look into alternative languages that have the features they want but solve whole classes of error. That's why many are excited by Rust. That's why C++ has had dramatic improvements over the last 10-20 years so devs who restrict themselves to a language subset can write safe code.

C is a bad language. It arguably was in the early 1970s. It should never have become the defacto standard for applications in the 1980s and 1990s (and we'd have seen less idiocy from ANSI about UB had it not been.) And the number of legitimate applications for C is reducing by the minute.

The only anti-rewrite argument that has some legitimacy when it comes to the GNU userland tools are that rewrites inherently introduce new bugs, while the GNU userland is for the most part well understood at this point. But... the counter to the latter is the environment changes. It's not been 30-40 years of code audits, it's been 30-40 years of "Does this command line flag do what is expected", with little thought given to mallocs without frees and frees without mallocs, and buffer overflows that weren't noticeable on an Intel 386 but are when you compile 64 bit code on an ARM. There have been times nobody cared about a bug because it didn't matter, but suddenly it does because that executable happens to be called by an IMAP daemon and you can use it to create and execute a local file.

The rewrite will introduce some bugs. Some will be severe. But there will be likely fewer bugs in the new tools in 5 years than there still will be in the GNU userland equivalents at that point. Rust itself will catch memory safety errors. And type safety errors. And a few other classes of error. And code will be more readable to a newer generation of programmers brought up in an environment where while(*x++=*y++);, while readable to you and me, might as well be Perl in terms of readability.

I have the opposite, can always get in with IPv6, but IPv4 results in me getting a lot of loops.

I suspect what you're seeing (and what I'm seeing) are both coincidences and reCAPTCHA doesn't care. From what I've read, reCAPTCHA only cares about IP addresses when it suspects you're using a server as an egress point (suggesting a hacked server), and blocking IPv6 would be insane given how few IPv6 servers there are, and what proportion of the consumer Internet uses IPv6 addresses by default.

Because it's marketing.

Generative AI is not unsafe in the way GenAI advocates are claiming. It's unsafe in general - it's causing education deficits, it's causing headaches for companies that have adopted it who no longer have business knowledge over how their own companies operate, it's slamming websites with bogus requests and causing the web to go offline, and when the web isn't offline people are discouraged from visiting websites by "AI summaries" that supposedly answer the questions that you'd normally go to the websites to get answers for. Also the false information given by "AI summaries" has probably caused a problem or two.

But in terms of taking over nuclear missiles and launching them at capital cities, and all the other ludicrous genAI claims made over the last few weeks by employees of OpenAI and Anthropic suggesting they plan to exterminate humanity, no, it's a fucking word predictor on steriods, it just doesn't have that power.

OpenAI and Anthropic are spreading this lie not because anyone who works for those companies believes it, but because a real AI, the type of thing that people are expecting something called "AI" to actually be, would be capable of reasoning that humans are the enemy (etc), and might go Skynet on humanity. If they say "Nah, you're all fine, what we have here is spicy autocomplete", then their potential for an IPO goes down the toilet.

These are dishonest companies that are doing everything that they can to pump up a tool with marginal utility in order to run off with the money before it becomes revealed that, no, their tech is unsustainable and was never as good as the cultists claimed anyway.

That's why politicians are talking about kill switches. They're being duped by Altman and friends into thinking that's necessary.

> Any programming language needs the equivalent of Rust's "unsafe"

Not really, no.

> Without it would be impossible to do any input or output.

Have you ever used any programming languages other than C, C++, etc? The important thing is that the language itself implements an interface between the OS and programs written in that language. In addition to that, most usually have an ABI that can be used to glue assembler libraries to the language - this is not the equivalent of "unsafe", because it's not part of the language, and a person downloading an application can see right away that it includes external libraries that interface with it.

Unsafe is in Rust because... well, Rust is designed to try to make memory safety attractive to devs who traditionally don't like being told what to do or that their favorite language sucks. Which is why, for example, advocates go to great lengths to claim Rust doesn't have garbage collection when, actually, it does, it's just not mark and sweep. Rust is as much about public relations and trying to get people to stop assuming they have to sacrifice safety for efficiency and low level access as it is about producing a useful programming languages.

And, unfortunately, part of that PR is to say "Look, we even have an "unsafe" keyword so you can get rid of (some of) our restrictions on you for those rare times you actually need it", and the group Rust is aimed at, of course, go "Oh, I can do this with a 2% speed up if I use unsafe, so I'm going to do the unsafe version, that's what makes Rust great" *insert Naked Gun facepalming scene here*.

I like Rust. But let's not pretend "unsafe" is a positive thing, or that most languages need it. Rust needs it because of its intended audience, but plenty of languages don't let the code itself be unsafe. Some have an unsafe keyword, some allow linking with unsafe assembler packages, and some... honest... don't have either, and your code is only unsafe if your compiler/interpreter is.

> Broadcast networks have to give the different major parties equal time.

The rule that this applies to late night talk shows is literally months old and has no basis in any new legislation. It was introduced by the FCC on a whim basically because they didn't want Colbert to interview the same person as Kimmel.

Under exceptions the same Wikipedia article, correctly, points out the current administration changed these rules to apply to... late night talk shows:

If the airing was within a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast, or an on-the-spot news event, the equal-time rule does not apply. Late-night and daytime talk show interviews were long considered to be bona fide news segments until the FCC issued new guidance in 2026 signaling that these types of shows would no longer be automatically granted the bona fide news exemption.[3][4]

This is a new interpretation of the equal time rule designed to make it difficult for late night shows to interview politicians, and if it wasn't for SCOTUS being nakedly partisan these days, it wouldn't muster a single court's scrutiny.

There is no equal time rule that applies to late night talk shows. This came up with the Colbert thing last year when Paramount similarly caved into FCC threats about it. This is a rule the FCC have arbitrarily decided to re-interpret despite decades of precedent.

You're still a moron. Fascism is not "Anything the government does that's bad", it's a system of corruption and abuse of power.

You may not agree with the vaccine mandate (because you're probably a moron as we've just established) but a vaccine mandate is not an abuse of power, literally the only incentive to do it is for the public good. It's not being done to enrich those in power, it's not being done to damage opponents, or to scapegoat powerless groups. It's not even being done to cement the power of those in power outside of persuading voters that they're competent. It's being done to prevent the spread of a disease.

That's text book "not fascism at all". The only thing it has in common with fascism is that "(whines) the government did something! It did something I tell you!" which is a pretty fucking stupid definition of fascism, and is the same definition a lot of Americans think applies to socialism, which... I mean, you fuckers have never heard of trade unions, the cooperative movement, independent private voluntary communes, or Robert Owen? Really?

If the government does something, and it's for the public good, rather than to cause unnecessary harm to the powerless or opponents or to steal from people, it's not fascism.

Insignia sells dumb TV, at least when I had to get a TV for my 80 year old in-laws a couple of years ago. (The whole "You must have a smart TV" thing is so stupid even when privacy issues and nerds aren't taken into account. It's like mandatory smartphones, or mandatory car driving.)

I can't say I was impressed by the quality however.

You think this is limited to $199 TVs? The full report (yeah, I watched it) focused mainly on TVs over $1,000.

Not that a TV being $199 is an excuse for spying on people. That's bootlicking bullshit, and you should be ashamed for even hinting that it's fine because of the price of the TV.

A year or two ago I noted that LLM answers to general queries seemed to be wrong 1/3 of the time, right 1/3 of the time so far as I could tell, and 1/3 of the time were completely irrelevant. I have noticed that this ratio appears to have held steady or is in fact getting worse, at least using the major public LLMs. At best, some slopcoders feel that for their applications it may be improving. But in terms of general knowledge even of, say, high school math (and I don't mean asking it to do the equations, just telling me how to do the calculation), they're embarrassingly bad.

I do not see where this "progressing rapidly" stuff is happening. They seem to be churning out the same slop they've always done.

Serious question, but I don't expect you to answer this in a forum like this: do you think it's possible you have a rosy eyed view of LLM tech because it tells you what you want to hear, not just in terms of viewpoints etc, but it keeps reassuring you how right you are, how your ideas are valid, it doesn't question your reason for wanting to do anything, it just supports you, not as a coworker, but as a minion desperate for your approval? And maybe you've never had that from coworkers before, because quite honestly, people in coding especially can be jerks sometimes, and will argue with you about why you're doing whatever you're doing. Perhaps it's possible that after decades of bullying and abuse, because that's what that behavior is even if it's normalized - you're just glad to have someone who does things without being argumentative about it?

There's more to it than just "they're better", there's also massive disparities in labour costs, etc, because of the high cost of living in the US.

If BYD wants to sell cars in the US, why not tell them they can but they need to build them in the US, just as Honda, Toyota, and Nissan do?

Supposedly Google's policies are to follow whatever names the locale the user is in uses. In some cases, this is legitimate, as there are several disputed territories around the world and Google isn't a position to pick and choose. On the other, clearly ridiculous situations such as where a President writes an EO, which merely orders his government to do something, and doesn't impact the rest of the country, are an absurd extreme of this.

But, if that's what they want, I'd totally understand if the Canadian government declares all Trump properties in the US having the name "Pedophile Palace", so someone who tries to find Mar-a-lago on Google Maps in Canada is instead presented with that name.

Maybe cheap and petty is the way to deal with cheap and petty.

IIRC it isn't enabled by default, and is considered a dev feature.

The summary and article are, more or less, bullshit.

Basically they're making it sound like these cars are catching fire because ICE cars have some special fault that makes them vulnerable in a way BEs don't. But... turns out all the examples are of the electrical systems of those cars catching fire. Not the engines. The very first example is about the front seat catching fire because the power seat switch on it is poorly designed.

These are all faults that could just as easily be in a BE vehicle. If Kia had a BE version of the Telluride it would have the exact same fault.

This isn't some ICE vs BE thing despite the breathless attempt to suggest it is.

(I say the above reluctantly because I really want BE vehicles to take off, ICE cars just seem more and more ludicrous as time progresses given the massive improvements in battery technologies. But this article isn't the reason to start going "Aha! ICE cars are just as bad!" on that one criticism of BE vehicles that's legitimate.)