shouldn't be used for irrelevant political issues? I am not claiming there is no problem with discrimination against minorities, and such issues should be addressed, but not from an organisation and grants focused on software. Just as climate organisations shouldn't all the sudden use their grants fighting for Palestine....

Yes, nuclear fission plants generate waste which have to be stored, and no realistic technology can make it disappear. Wings from old wind turbines are also waste, but it is realistic to do something about it, although expensive. But you also need huge batteries, creating their own waste problems - easier to recycle, maybe. If the amount of radioactive waste is very small compared to the energy generated, nuclear can still be considered cleaner, and a much faster way to zero-emission. Ideally, the cost of waste, risks, noise and visual pollution simply have to be paid for up front, and then let the market decide, instead of being a political decision based on feelings. But that is unrealistic:-(

If you simply translate GPL code in another language, the GPL still applies.

If it is for short lived shell utilities, GC might be better, as the process might close before it is ever needed, i.e. calling free is a waste of time, introducing bugs. I agree, I would hesitate to use a GC for anything time critical, but that does hardly apply for the stuff being rewritten here.

That are one of the differences between highest and low end brands. But I am in general wondering about the economics of making things last: Would it be profitable if companies had to pay for all externalities, i.e. environment damage, or wouldn't produce cheap and recycle raw materials still be more profitable?

lwn.net have an article about https://fil-c.org/, which is a C compiler they claim to be able to compile most C code "memory safe". Explicitly, they claim to have compiled much of userspace Linux "memory safe". A lot of the excuse to rewrite to rust is gone, if that really works and is performance enough.

https://fil-c.org/. They claim to be able to compile much of the same code memory safe, so no need to rewrite in Rust. Unless the goal is Rust itself. Or corporate pressure to get rid of GPL - a pressure many in the Open Source community falls for.

Despite his bad detour in politics and buying Twitter, he is a skilled businessman. He thinks big, giving big returns - and failures. But on average a plus. I don't worship people for making money, but I like when they create positive things. Musk have kick-started the electric cars, build cheap access to space and space based internet. An overall plus for humanity. No matter how dislikeable he is on other fronts, you can't take that from.

It is ok to generate code from some configuration options, but the file with these options is what belongs in Git (along with a build script), not the auto-generated code. The worst thing you can do is to edit autogenerated code: How do you update the code generator and run it without loosing your own code? This kind of code is only for short lived projects.

They got security guarantees from US, UK and Russia for doing it. So US and UK should defend them right now...

Because of people saving that, he got elected again. The US voters wanted less immigrants and financial stability. But they didn't want trade wars and tariffs increasing inflation - but he said he would do it, and they voted him in anyway, because they were so used to him saying all kinds of things, but he actually believes in much of it.

With new ids? Maybe Android?

Simple rule: Large companies must pay dividends instead of keep growing. Put a max worth of 100 billion USD. Any company with a higher evaluation must pay dividends and thus become smaller. The stock holders must instead invest in other companies.

and people keep using it, because that is what they are used to.

There wasn't much competition anyway: Most contracts from ESA are given such that they have to have subcontractors in many countries, so they end up subcontracting each other. This in, theory, could make it more effective, but don't expect too much. No new SpaceX here, just a money grab from EU, panicing, because we basically don't attract the entrepreneurs the US does, such we don't have our own tech, like Starlink. Why did Elon go to the US instead of Europe?