On the other hand, C does exactly what you tell it to do.

Not exactly. It does what the compiler, through blind, fast, accurate and utterly mechanically stupid application of the rules of the standard believes you have told it. The standard has scope to allow for demons to fly from your nose and the compiler will oblige you in that if you accidentally ask it to.

Rust always feels like a constant argument with the compiler (linter really?) where it keeps going 'I understand what you are trying to but am not going to do it'

Well not really because you're saying "I want you to do X and prove Y", but the compiler is telling you it cannot prove "Y" if you do "X". But you're asking it to prove Y. So it's doing exactly what you asked (trying to prove Y).

If you don't want it to prove Y than you can always just temporarily switch off the prover (i.e. borrow checker[*]) and fuck around with dereferencing raw pointers to your heart's content in an unsafe block.

[*]Hey rustaceans no one cares about your language specific terminological pedantry when discussing things which include, but are not limited to rust.

If you have fun programming in Rust, you will have fun programming in C.

Programming in C is a bit of a slog, frankly. You have to do every. little. thing. by. hand, even though there's a perfectly good computer sitting right there you could (in principle) use to automate away tedious stuff.

On the other hand, a standardized package label that tells me how to recycle the package is useful, regardless of how much of that type of packaging gets recycled.

If there's nowhere to recycle it then it's not telling you how to recycle the material.

It doesn't matter if there are no facilities for recycling that type of packaging nearby today. There might be in a year or three.

Or never. It might not be something that's practical to recycle with current technology.

The state can publish a report on how much of each type of plastic is actually being recycled. This is much less invasive than requiring state-specific package labeling

It's also much much less informative. If it isn't being recycled in California, the largest, richest state in the union you can be sure that Arkansas doesn't in fact have a plant capable of separating layered packaging.

But as for what actually is recycled, it seems to me that's on those who collect and manage waste.

What is actually recycled is determine purely by economics of what is practical to recycle. It's shitty reasoning like yours is why things like Tetrapaks are labelled as recyclable. There is no known way of separating the thin,glued layers of paper, aluminium and polythene. It's not the fucking municipalities fault no one has figured out how to do that cheaply.

In the end, I'd hate to see fewer containers labeled as recyclable, because it could discourage consumers from placing items in recycle bins.

Good grief no. Having theoretically-recyclable-but-not-actually waste in DMR bins makes the job at the MRF harder.

A simpler explanation is that this is a biased news report intended to stir up outrage

No the simplest explanation is big companies want to buy laws to make themselves more profitable.

If the bag your product came in has a polypropylene triangle on it (a "5"), it means the bag *can* be recycled.

No, it can be recycled in theory, not in practice.

They want to sow confusion, because consumers don't really know what's only theoretically recyclable versus actually recycled. The manufacturers wants consumers to think they are paying extra for the latter while actually selling them a cheaper version of the former.

There was a Sonnax fix for my ZF5HP42A valve body problems too. It didn't work.

Security is not a boolean.

Of all the things I wish I had gotten when my father died, his 1962 Chevy C10 with the 292 and 4 speed is at the absolute top. I would have updated from points to electronic ignition, though.

The ZF 8 has a 150k km planned lifespan and is known for valve body problems causing it to drop into limp mode.

I had enough fun with ZF when I had a ZF5. I don't need 3 more problems than I had with that one.

They have been for decades really, it's just least common in OTR hauling because in that application the manual gearbox still has an efficiency advantage. They are probably most common for construction equipment because the automatic gearbox offers tangible advantages there. There's a promotional video from Allison which is pretty easy to find whose tagline is something like "continuous power" about how the benefits of their transmissions which are able to make shifts under full power, which is true; the heavy ones are full planetary gear designs and they are as convenient and reliable as the day is long. These gearboxes also don't conveniently feature more than six speeds, but on the plus side, Allison tends to give two overdrives on highway use transmissions.

The problem with consumer-level automatic transmissions continues to be reliability. A lot of the modern many-speed automatic transmissions have only a single-gear limp mode which is only suitable for getting them onto a trailer, where older transmissions often used to have two-speed limp mode, and some of the new transmissions cannot limp at all without a functioning TCM. I see that as a big drawback. Belt-driven CVTs are also infamously fragile, yet also dominant in low-end vehicles.

Those time frames are sufficiently different that you really cannot draw any conclusions from them alone, but the writing is clearly on the wall for manual transmissions in Europe as well, they're just a bit behind the curve. ICEVs themselves are going away, and are likely to stop being sold sooner in Europe than the USA, so they may well catch up.

Well, it isn't for a whole lot of reasons. Zeroth, "utopia" means nowhere and it's a thought experiment. First and foremost though, the "I" in "I'm" — utopia is supposed to be a type of society and not just a state of being for a single person. It's working for you now so you are happy now. But you being able to replace all those people now somehow hasn't made you wonder if you are going to be replaced.

Another reason which is (now that I make the comparison) actually equally important is that AI is based on unsustainable resource consumption, which means that it's fundamentally not post-scarcity.

Maybe you should ask an AI what some of these words you're using mean. It seems to be making you dumber already, though, so it would probably be healthier to look them up for yourself instead of asking a LLM and having it tell you that you are a very smart boy.

That's a particularly sad little straw man even for Slashdot.

What we know for sure already is that AI use is correlated with impaired knowledge accumulation and transfer. It's poisoning its own well.

It's not treason unless you do it for the purpose of harming your country or aiding an adversary. This is "only" sharing confidential and potentially classified material out of scope, which is also serious but doesn't call for anyone to be hung by the neck until dead.

Why do you feel the need to make up complete bullshit?

If you think you need all of that to have a job here, then frankly you are completely deluded.