There is increasing pressure on companies to take responsibility for their software products. This includes preasure to move towards memory safe languages. This exercise is about getting C++ of the governments naughty lists, so that people can continue to use C++ without extra regulatory overhead and too much risk to the company.

Rust is just a working example of a language with similar performance to C++, whise approach could be copied. The committee opted to not do that and go for something that does not make the language memory safe at all, but that catches enough bugs to be close enough (they hope).

We'll see whether that is implementable, practical and enough to satisfy regulators.

I have hunted my fair share of core dumps in Qt code. Each one is a memory safety fail... it is, just like the rest of C++ not memory safe.

I find it funny that so many C++ devs seem to think using smart pointers means you are memory safe. It does not, there is so much more needed... check what the "safe C++" proposal set out to change, that's what you need tomdo to make C++ memory safe using the approach rust took. It includes fun stuff like new reference semantics, destructive moves and a new standard library.

Yeah I was always impressed by that in the UK, but also a bit confused on what the incentive is for banks to build out their networks.

The high out-of-network fees in Canada cause the banks to compete on this... banks with more ATMs in an area will get more customers. As a result we have bank ATMs everywhere.

Out of network ATM withdrawals in Canada cost around $7 if you don't have a premium banking plan... with $3.50 being charged by your bank, and $3.50 by the ATM owner bank.

https://phys.org/news/2025-09-...

Just FYI you're describing exactly what people with bowel cancer go through, a colostomy bag.

Norway has entered the chat

Agree, this whole study sounds very strange.

It is also very strange that it is SPECIFICALLY recommending a strange new sweetener that is very uncommon.

Funded by either that sweetener, or the sugar industry, most likely.

Treating image search, finance search, travel search, and news search as different "products" is a false flag by DuckDuckGo and others.

When I search for a topic - let's say NVidia - all I care about is are the results accurate, relevant, and actionable.

If they aren't then over time I will go and use a different tool.

Having to go to different places for different kinds of search is just ridiculously anti-consumer and short-sighted - especially in this age of AI. If a ruling like that happened, then Perplexity would just totally eat Googles lunch, not because their results were better but simply because users wouldn't have to go to multiple places.

Seattle gets its fair share of fog and heavy rain all winter long

Meanwhile, Denver will get snow

I don't know how many times one has to say it...

Opinion-based surveys"
  are irrelevant when one has 150 years of actual statistics.

The population in developed economies shrinks - regardless of employment rates. There is ZERO correlation of employment rates to fertility rates. There is STRONG correlation of human development index to fertility rates.

The entire world is on track to be below replacement fertility before 2050. Note that every year that passes, that estimate is revised DOWNWARD. It used to be the 2080s as recent as 2023.

That isn't data... It's a silly lifestyle piece.

Go look at *actual global fertility charts* for the past 150 years.

Look up literally any study on this topic since the beginning of time.

Sounds good in theory - except that when the population pyramid (ie, more young people than old) collapses, it leads to major unrest in society as no one is there to support the elderly who can't work.

Unless we can backfill the economy with robotics, we are all screwed.

People - especially Millenials and GenZ - like to use this argument all the time. "Why would I want to have kids in this economy".

The problem is, there is ZERO DATA TO BACK THIS UP.

Repeat after me: The MORE AFFLUENT a society becomes, the LESS CHILDREN they have. We have hundreds of years of data to back this up. The reasons have to do with

- Increased choice for women in what they do
- Increased options for leisure time
- Decreased concern about "extending the blood line"