Yup, just another example of the Carbon Capture Perpetual Motion Machine Scam. The thermodynamic uphill problem with atmospheric capture is so extreme that if you had enough free energy sitting around to make it worthwhile, you wouldn't need to do any of this.
Rust touts its amazing memory safe etc, but then it appears that to do much of anything (especially replicate existing non-rust code functionality) then rust reaches for allowing "unsafe" code. So, what was the point?
Is that the design of Rust or is it developers porting existing code in the laziest way by just encapsulating "unsafe" code with a keyword and calling it done? I think is the latter.
You should be able to use Rust without using Unsafe, otherwise it doesn't solve the problem it claims to solve (or rather, it solves them in a "good enough" fashion, the same as smart pointers in C++ and there's no reason to switch from one to the other).
Do you have examples where Rust is implemented with unsafe? I would think Google implementing Rust code in Android for memory safety would not just allow unsafe everywhere.
Err you're talking about a car made in a country that literally is just hills coming out of a fault line in the ocean. Kei cars don't struggle on hills. They may not accelerate as quickly. They may not be able to tow a heavy load up them, but they'll do perfectly fine. Hell they are far better than the Fiat 500 - staple of the South Tirol alps.
And you're making the assumption that somehow the OP's roads are "badly designed" based on nothing. Miss the point, much?
What could be a game changer is if China finds a simpler way to do EUV.
It is possible that China found a simpler/cheaper way to create the light source for EUV; however, simpler and less expensive does not lead to better production or yields. We will have to see.
Again, I don't believe anything China says just like I don't believe anything Intel says. Intel said their 14th generation was better than their 13th generation. It was not; it just used more power to artificially achieve better performance.
It is not just the semiconductor industry where China's claims are to be met with skepticism. In high-tech industries like combat aircraft, China's J-20 was lauded to be its next generation stealth fighter that rivals the US F-35. However China also claimed its older (and "stealth killer") J-10C shot down one of their J-20s in a war drill. So their 1990s fighter shot down their "next gen stealth fighter". Can you see what is wrong with that statement?
This is exactly how Rust started, like all projects. Designed by naive usually younger developers but not always (eg. the Java calamity, the Perl 6 debacle, etc).
I would not call James Gosling young nor naïve at 39 when he started Java in 1994. Nor Larry Wall who was 46 when he announced what would become Perl 6 in 2000, a language he started at 33. You can have opinions about their strategies and design but calling them "young and naive" is rather ignorant of programming history.
Then to make it actually work in real life they learn it's not so easy and start shoehorning stuff, and scope creep, and
[sarcasm]As opposed to every other language that never had scope creep. All other languages were perfect on inception to current day. [/sarcasm]
Rust has nearly an identical design to Scala and Scala is like OCAML, and they all suck because the code is nearly impossible to maintain and there isn't enough energy to fix all the bugs.
Er what? Scala was designed to over come the criticisms of Java. It is a high-level language that translates to bytecode and requires a JVM. How is that "identical" to Rust which is more general purpose but can be used as a low-level language that compiles directly into machine code? That's like saying a gasoline combustion engine has "nearly an identical design" to an electric vehicle engine.
is less work than building the house.
The odd general fascination with cosmetics is not utilitarian, but piddling with cosmetics gives the illusion of accomplishment as if change were progress.
Equating "opt-in" with "just don't use these UI elements" is too coarse-grained to be a useful rule of thumb. At the top of that slippery slope is stuff like freemium applications - until you give them a credit card, various buttons/features just show you an ad and a buy button. I think this is perfectly acceptable, even if it feels a bit tacky to me. But once you accept getting a little more adversarial with your UX design, it isn't all that far from arranging buttons such that you can count on a predictable percentage of misclicks, Zuckerbook-style privacy-settings, and other shitty behavior like that.
I'm not some gnu-eyed idealist, but I do expect software I run on my machine to behave in ways that align (or can be made to align) with my slightly idiosyncratic interests. Software that behaves like a tireless nagging 3 year-old or tries to trick me in to doing what the developer wants is garbage that doesn't belong in my house.
It is harder to express, but I really think the bar for an application like Firefox needs to be, good-faith accommodation of a very wide range of people, in basically every relevant dimension, which is a lot, because browsers touch nearly everything. "I don't want to (I don't want my kids/people at this kiosk/whoever to) interact with your robots" is a perfectly reasonable accommodation to make. None of this is new - discussion about (un)ethical patterns of human-computer interaction goes back decades.
Now think about having this same argument over a feature that inserts free clipart into documents or saves the current page to a clipping service. The fact that this sort of discussion about UI is even controversial is a testament to how much the money people are desperate to shovel this stuff at you are.
In the vast majority of military careers pols matter little. Careers outlast multiple POTUS and mostly take place far away from them. When you're chilling at a NATO base, Japan or South Korea what happens in DC is of nil interest unless you have or want orders there.
Why would anyone care what the President of the US thinks of their job so long as their pay shows up? I don't value the respect of those I hold in contempt nor grudge their indifference to me. We owe each other nothing not spelt out in law.
From a
Vesting a reliable recession-resistant retirement is absolutely worth killing for, especially after a mere twenty years which leaves time to enjoy the second half of your life. Retiring in your forties frees you to pursue a second career or whatever steams your Speedos. The armed forces need younger, deployable troops capable of expeditionary warfare. When those troops age out and retire their accumulated experience remains valuable to support the same hardware and missions differently.
The point of all those Stanford degrees was to get money. Lack of jobs suggests using those credentials elsewhere, preferably in careers resistant to economic downturns and inconvenient to outsource.
All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing without thinking.
