Not at all. Political bias extend in both directions. One administration would advance a green project over any military concerns. another administration would be hostile to the project for its own political reason. Any legit military concern a pretext. Either way, a political decisions does not speak to whether the concern is legit or not. FWIW, another poster pointed out Sweden has done this too, for military radar interference reasons.

Not at all. Political bias extend in both directions. One administration would advance a green project over any military concerns. another administration would be hostile to the project for its own political reason. Any legit military concern a pretext. Either way, political decisions do not speak to whether the concern is legit or not.

FWIW, another poster pointed out Sweden has done this too, for military radar interference reasons.

Another poster pointed out Sweden has done this due to interference with early warning radar too.

Trump supporting some existing argument does not make it wrong or right. It just means the argument coincidentally benefits him, for now. Its refreshing to see someone wonder whether an idea has its own merits.

And if the civilian project is not interested in redesigning things to adjust for military concerns, what might the government do next?

You mean other than "national security concerns", which a coastal blind spot would be. ;-)

This was an issue being raised before Trump. One administration dismisses the problem for political reasons, another administration embraces the problem for political reasons. Regardless of the politics, it's still a legit problem.

Let me know when it will drop me off at my house.

You see those two meat sticks sort of fused to your torso around where your ballsack is? Turns out if you wiggle your meat just right you can kind of perambulate around and move the rest of your meat to other places, such as where the rails are.

Weird, I know. But amazingly, milions of people every day manage to wiggle their meat just right to move the rest of their meat to places other than their garage.

Or be available at a moment's notice.

Do you really just set off in your car with no thought about traffic conditions? Either you live in absolutely bumfuck nowhere in which case why are you discussing it in the context of city life, or you just have a weird fetish for sitting in traffic jams.

Or can make random stops on my trip and still be there when I'm done.

Do you really just stop completely at random? Or do you in fact plan where you're driving and then stop at useful places along the way? Because if the former, well, you do you, boo. If the latter, fun fact: you can get off a train or tram too at stops which are almost always located in useful places.

It may also surprise you that trains are not single use, disposable machines like vapes. Once the train is gone, it's not gone forever. In places with a functional transport system, they're frequent enough that it's often not worth checking the timetable.

Sean Baxter did that with Circle lang. It's C++ plus a load of extras including lifetimes and borrowing. What it doesn't do is what the GP wants which is save mortals from the complexity of lifetime management.

Java also has double and Double though (and outside of char and Character all of the other classes have the same name as the primitive with the exception of the capital letter), so I don't think that's it, or at least not entirely. For the most part (there are some exceptions) it doesn't matter since the compiler will implicitly handle conversions between the two. Syntax highlighting or other IDE features are likely more helpful at distinguishing between the two anyway.

I haven’t dug in to Rust enough or all that recently to know if there's a deeper reasoning behind the difference. Unless you can see the declaration it's the same problem as Java where you're probably relying on the IDE to inform you what type you're dealing with if you happened to forget.

I was similarly underwhelmed by the first. It was technically impressive, particularly considering it came out nearly 15 years ago and most computer graphics are lucky to hold up for a decade. However, narratively it was bland and from what I've heard the sequels are worse. It seems like Cameron has aimed the films at a younger audience, which of course is going to limit how complex they can be, but there are plenty of Pixar films that do a better job with their storytelling even though they're animated films designed for a family audience.

The film has already made $130 million globally for the first night release according to Box Office Mojo. It will probably do just fine. Everyone else in Hollywood would kill to be in Cameron's shoes right now. His film will likely end up subsidizing a lot of other crap that lost the studio money this year.

I program now for fun, not professionally.

UID checks out.

Something changed late last year. It may just be that the shine is wearing off, but I find most of the AI products producing less quality results than they did previously.

Empirically, speaking around to a few people yeah something now somehow feels not quite as good as it used to be. I think the yes-man problem has got worse. If you're trying to find the API/argument/etc to do X it will always tell you what a great idea it is and give you the code, even if there is no way to do it. I think it's got more sycophantic and that makes it harder to break out of the doom loop to say that "tool X has no flag to do X" or whatever.

On the other hand my boss vibe coded an impressive demo last weekend. Basically a functional mockup (it was never destined to be production code). It's interesting though because he isn't non techincal, and does have some experience of web dev, enough to ask the right questions of the AI, I suppose. He was all "yeah I told it to use [list of frameworks I'd never heard of]". It does seem good at writing react components.

Well, plenty of blockchain proponents and companies do/did.

No need for lifetimes and stuff like that for "mortal" programmers...

You say there's no need, but why not? So far the known solutions are:

1. GC (large overheads, eliminates Rust from the spaces it's trying to occupy)
2. C-style #YOLO!!
3. C++ style: take the C model, automate away a lot of the complexity but with quite a few nasty holes around the edges remaining
4. That new C++ compiler that adds memory safety at the cost of overhead. Can't remember the name!
5. Rust: explicitly mark out everything that's implicit in 2 and 3
6. Ada/SPARK: you think Rust is pedantic? Your code won't compile if the compiler can't prove it meets the pre/post conditions (which include memory safety). They've started adding borrowing copied from Rust to expand what the theorem prover can prove.

What you can't have is something with the speed of C, the overhead of C and memory safety but without the hassle of Rust or SPARK. At least, no one has a damned clue how to make such a holy grail language.

If you're prepared to sacrifice full native performance with full natie memory performance, there's D with it's GC and I think it can be memory safe if the GC is there. There's the modified C++ compiler which will run slower and have some memory overhead. There's also go, which is natively compiled with a GC, but if you've come from a scripting language you might well find its facilities very weak compared to Ruby or Python.

What are you on about? Go on Amazon or any other retailer and tell me there's a lack of competition in the alarm clock market. No one is forced to buy this and alarm clocks are about as far down as a person can get on the need vs. want scale of products before crossing over into the realm of wall-mounted talking bass.

The free market is its own referee. Businesses that don't offer or stop providing value to customers tend not to have them and go out of business. No one is forced to buy this product or service. Using it as some reason to shove idiot government interventionism is as stupid as this alarm clock and subscription model.

The $20 basic alarm clock I've had for at least two decades now continues to work just fine. A lot of people I know don't even have one as they just use their phone to set an alarm to wake up. Anyone spending $170 on an alarm clock has more money than sense to begin with so it's little surprise that a product prices to attract stupid people will nickel and dime them after the purchase as well.

Someone will always sell a basic $20 alarm clock and there's little need for anything beyond that. I refuse to feel bad for anyone who wastes their money on something like this even if they're being taken advantage of.