Does it matter? Presumably there are lots of ways to generate the exact same seeds, and once you have the seed, you no longer need the method you used to generate them.
...this looks to me like a PR stunt.
Agree! And yes, the number of infinite string constructions is large! It's the enumeration of infinity that kills.
All languages eventually become too complex.
Have you seen the last iteration of Oberon?
How about this little language called Go. It's only used by a small company and crafted by amateurs and occasionally used for high performance computing, but it's worth checking out. The lang spec is still tiny with a stdlib that does all the things.
First, what does this have to do with anything rust has promised? Nobody ever said you'd be able to directly port your code using the same logic. In fact it's pretty much expected that you won't be able to because of rust's rather unique semantics.
That's a problem.
Second, this will depend heavily upon how you're used to structuring your code. C/C++ will let you do things that are fundamentally unsound, and rust won't.
Unsound according to whom?
That means if you're used to, for example, mutating referenced memory while you have another reference to it anywhere else, then you'll need to rethink your implementation,
Or rethink your selection of languages.
Man this is gold and I needed this today, thank you AC. I guess it's an age thing where people think that the "old" way of doing things (such as responsible code writing) is somehow automatically trumped by a new language that forces you to work with kid gloves. I'm a Go man myself and love the freedoms it offers -- I don't want or need the handholding because 30 years of mistakes have taught me well!
Russia's space rockets are basically the same ICBMs from the 60s.
What you are talking about. Soyuz has over 1,900 flights and was commissioned for all kinds of launches until up to the war in Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It still blows my mind that the U.S. put an actual human up there > 50 years ago.
If it helps, look at some of the engineering wonders *in operation* in the 60's on ICBMs. Mt fav is [Polaris 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-27_Polaris) that saw *deployment* by 1962! Optically-driven guidance!
That all said, what is a tragedy is the quantity of wealth consumed by the MIC in this process -- all for MAD policies. Just as Eisenhower foresaw -- and here wewre are today where this MIC waste has grown to grotesque proportions.
If anything, quite the opposite - you wouldn't expect a divinely inspired document to conflict with testable reality nearly so often..
Oh, you mean our scientific "reality" where:
- We have to posit the existence of 96% of the mass-energy of the universe because of the missing mass needed to explain star velocities in galaxies (dark matter) and to force-equate distances with a constant of integration (dark energy) -- when we have no direct observation of either of these.
- We pretend everything is ok (for GR and the SM to coexist) when they have yet to be reconciled for 50+ years.
- Where an expanding earth model fits geological data better than floating plate tectonics (but contradicts energy conservation under the same laws that don't explain the above 96%)
- Where the strength-to-weight ratio of dinosaur bones is impossibly too weak to support animals like the T-Rex, let alone Brontosaurus
- We have no explanation for the natural matter-to-antimatter ratio or that we have a "particle zoo" rather than anything elegant
- The speed of light has has gyrated (slightly) over the decades -- but nonetheless significantly outside error bars given at the time.
- The best explanation is that everything as we know it appeared in basically an instant, from nothing -- but that the idea of God isn't even part of the discussion?
"Modern" scientific instruments have only existed for ~300 years to be generous meanwhile quantum theory shows us up and down that understating exactly how observations integrate with the universe is entirely up for grabs.
A more likely scenario is that we really have no idea what is going on -- that time and/or mass energy doesn't work the way we think it does. In short: that the further you go back, the more mystical the timeline gets. Further, I don't know if you've ever read the Bible, but it is chuck full of prophesy that has come to pass, including a man who raised the dead, who walked on water, fed thousands from a lunch box, who was confirmed dead by hundreds, and who appeared again to over 500 eye-witnesses -- all documented exhaustively.
Be careful what you consider an authority of truth -- or at least be logical and favor the explanation that requires less of a leap of faith.
As an atheist, swearing on any religious book would be silly for me, because it would hold no meaning. In fact, I can't think of any text that I consider to be sacred.
Well how about your integrity then?
Not long ago, your word was your bond. The practice of "swearing in" reflected this formally, so as if you were you break your oath -- your bond -- then others could rightfully accuse you of falling out of integrity with yourself (and your higher beliefs). In harsher times, losing your credibility was one worst consequences for someone who wanted his family to survive and be prosperous. A man with no honor or integrity and could not be trusted and was useful for little -- and still holds true.
This is more like selling lifeboats to those flailing from the already sunk ship.
You mean lifeboat futures and options!
Just don't call it an investment. It's a gamble.
Those are mutable subsets of each other.
Truth, however, speculation is the key word. Whereas growth from genuine in investment is a maturing or fruition of value that was known to be there all along.
I carry a pocket firewall with me when I travel.
Any recommendations on brands or models?
My dad used an XT clone for his normal, daily use home computer from the early 80's to around 2005. Eventually he bought a used Dell that lasted him the rest of his life in order to be able to send and receive email.
The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard
