How can you state that? I'm assuming you're a Rust proponent from that wild statement, which goes to show you how little you know about the topic.

Yes, memory leaks can and do happen in Rust. Rust is not perfect. Neither are the people who write it.

Most Rust code is written by its proponents' AI models, anyway.

This is an engineering maxim as old as time.

If your response to theoretically old, brittle, and "wrong language" code is "rewrite it in something better", you don't understand the problem.

There has never in the history of software development been an effort to rewrite a platform in another language which wasn't subsequently plagued by all manners of new and interesting problems.

In a best case scenario, the product has an exhaustive regression testing framework, complete unit tests for every function, e2e testing, and reintegrative CI/CD. But that is rarely true for any project, and certainly isn't true for old ones which predate such practices.

You make an important point: the biggest positive contribution to making old tools better without introducing more brittle behavior is with coverage from test suites, and improved code coverage.

This IS the Rust community you're talking about, after all.

While Rust is a fine language, the community tends to be a bit fanatical and irrational. Pair that with a generally shallow technical aptitude depth and a lack of experience, and vibe coding, and therein lies the problem. There seems to be a high intersection between them and the systemd, so that's not a surprise.

And that's without getting into questionable mental health practices that are common in that community.

I think you responded to someone else's comment.

You're not supposed to sell it. (Does anyone sell euros?) You're supposed to spend it. But hardly anyone takes it.

at some point most people want to sell the Bitcoin for dollars or pounds or euros

The fact that this is even significant (and it is) 15-20 years after the introduction of Bitcoin, shows that it has been a complete, miserable failure.

I think Bitcoin was a neat idea. Shame it didn't work.

I miss pc at power systems.
"Is it off?" was never a question.

I see the future of movies as being AI-generated, with viewers providing scripts, actors, directors, and whatever else they care about, either their own or rented. You'll choose everything and the AI will generate it real time. You'll be able to adjust parameters on the fly -- funnier, darker, more introspective, more action -- overall or per actor. You'll be able to talk to the characters, provide real and misleading clues to detectives, tell the AI to throw in a car accident or a broken sidewalk just to see the characters react to it and change the story for a few seconds.

It will certainly be possible within 50 years. Might be possible within 25 years. What it will do is destroy top actors' salaries. Why rent some famous actor's visage for $5 when you can make one up from scratch or pick some new actor for $1?

You'll also be able to remake old movies. There are stories about famous movies who had to settle for an actor because their first choice was unavailable or too expensive; so change to their first choice, see how it changes everything. They'll be out of copyright and cheap, and probably have a dozen businesses offering their own take on the same actor.

It's going to relegate live actors to stage work, which may or may not be live streamed. The days of $10 million acting gigs will be over. And actors won't be nearly as insufferable pontificating on things they think they learned from roles.

> The AI movie experience is slowly improving, but is still terrible. You can make a very short 5s shot that's QUITE convincing...so long as there's a single subject...really closeup.

That's simply not true. I watched a ten-minute AI-generated Star Trek video on Youtube last week which was better than any offficial Star Trek show of the last few years.

And the guy made it at home on an Nvidia GPU in his PC using a Chinese video model.

There is pushback on Flock, and, from some of the stories where officers were using them to "follow" someone for a date or what not, yes, they need to be held accountable. With a huge system, comes huge responsibility, and unfortunately, a lot of humans don't have that. But, what will probably happen, is some huge "9/11" type event will happen, that perhaps the flock cameras could have tracked or help prevent and just like with 9/11, the public will "demand" government do something about it. After 9/11, the TSA came along. Now, you get to show up at the airport an hour or more to be searched, in some cases groped, you can't take shampoo on board with you, you can't do this, you can't do that, you have to have a "real ID" to fly and on and on. You can bet, that if something happens that perhaps a flock could have helped in some way, the public will demand Washington do something. And, politicians, D or R, will jump on that, and VOLLA! Cameras everywhere, tracking everyone, not just in vehicles, but walking, bicycles etc. And don't think that eventually, they will start sending you tickets for speeding, or jaywalking thanks to the cameras. Heck, with all of the connectivity/GPS in vehicles, I'm surprised they don't send tickets already! And, perhaps states will get rid of the "gas tax" and other fees and just tax you based on how many miles you drive, thanks to the cameras & connectivity on your vehicle. It's happened before...it will happen again.

Imagine having TDS since 2016.

The "reason" needs to be a warrant number, full stop.

When I say "sweater" I mean a pullover....down here mostly just simple cotton sweaters, not terribly heavy....

Why would they need a warrant? Flock consents to their customers accessing Flock's data.

[various anticipated objections] Yes, but this is in America.

So many Hollywood scriptwriters who lazily decided, "I'll just use Nazis for the bad guys, they're universally-recognized evergreen enemies," are facepalming these days.