No, I’m saying that when people run into strange bugs, sometimes they put together an issue (like the person behind cve-rs), and sometimes they quietly work around it because they’re busy.
Seeing as I don’t often trawl through issues on the language git, neither really involve notifying me specifically.
My lack of an anecdote does not equate to anecdotal evidence of no issue, just that I haven’t met every rust developer.
Yes, the problems rust is solving are already solved under different constraints. This is not a spicy take.
The world isn’t clamoring to turn a go app into rust specifically for the memory safety they both enjoy.
Systems applications are still almost exclusively written in C & C++, and they absolutely do run into memory bugs. All the time. I work with C almost exclusively for my day job (with shell and rust interspersed), and while tried and tested C programs have far fewer memory bugs than when they were first made, that means the bugs you do find are by their nature more painful to diagnose. Eliminating a whole class of problems in-language is absolutely worth the hype.
If someone did, why would I hear of it?
The code used in cve-rs is not that complicated, and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that somebody would use lifetimes like this if they had just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
I’m as much a rust evangelist as the next guy, but part of having excellent guard rails is loudly pointing out subtle breakages that can cause hard to diagnose issues.
What kind of idiot workplace would allow that? Perhaps if you don’t assume the people you talk to are literally brain-dead, you might understand what they’re saying.
hat’s a bad faith interpretation of “the people control the means of production”.
I want you to consider the difference between the work needed to complete a task, and the work needed to manage a workplace: for one of those tasks, only the experts in that task can meaningfully contribute to the outcome, whereas for the other, everybody who is part of the workplace has meaningful input.
I don’t know about your experience, but everywhere I’ve worked there have been people “on the ground” who get to see the inefficiencies in the logistics of their day to day jobs; in a good job a manager will listen and implement changes, but why should the workers be beholden to this middleman who doesn’t know how the job works?
I’ve also had plenty of roles where management have been “telling me where to cut”.
Spyro the Dragon on PS1
Any government which makes caffeine illegal must be prepared to enforce that law with mass violence, or let it be ignored.
Given how unlikely your average cop is going to enforce a law they regularly brea… Oh, nevermind. Yeah it’d be a shit show. Demonstrations, arrests, black markets, the whole nine yards.
Eggs are pushing $10/doz where I am 💀
You can absolutely put together a relatively healthy meal for reasonably cheap, I’m talking about “getting your gas cut-off” budgeting though.
They most certainly are not. If you’re buying unhealthy food only as snacks, you mistake your subset as all unhealthy food.
If you need calories and are on a shoestring budget, your options are potatos, bad bread, Coles cakes etc. You can eat for a week on a few dollars but you’ll become overweight and eventually die of malnutrition. Your options become even more limited if you don’t have a working stove due to being cut off your gas.
Quantum Mechanics’ hard indeterminism doesn’t prove the multiverse interpretation, it’s just one of several potential explanations for the randomness we see.
Hailey Williams. Wasn’t even into that genre at the time, but her voice always made me think “wow, this is pretty good”.
I’ve been considering copyfarleft licenses like the Anti-Captialist Licence and the Peer Production Licence for a while now; I like the licenses themselves, my only issue is that since there is no body like the FSF to enforce them, a company large enough is likely just to steal the code or break licence.
Individualistic thinking such as “don’t eat meat,” or “don’t have children,” is making a moral judgement as well as using the trivial answer to the problem. (If there were no humans there would be no human-caused climate change, amazing.)
Saying “don’t eat meat” is an individualistic proposal, but that doesn’t mean it is ineffective or a moral argument; reducing the carbon intensity of the food you eat is undeniably effective at reducing the demand for carbon intensive foods. It’s not the same as shutting down a factory farm, but it is still having an affect. It can’t be the only thing done, but saying “that’s an individualistic argument” seems like avoiding the fact that it is undeniably effective. Choosing to eat meat is an individualistic decision as well.
Not having children is more complicated. Humans don’t inherently have a net positive carbon offset, because we are able to create things like carbon sinks that more than offset that person’s individual carbon output. The problem is that our system as it stands actively discourages people from having a positive environmental effect. I choose not to have children, because in our current capitalist driven climate change train, having children is like bringing a log into a house fire; they’re not going to make a big difference but they are kindling nonetheless and will suffer for it.
One of our engineering teams who normally builds our products in-house was made to bid against contractors who promised the moon.
Them and multiple other teams then had to spend a total of 18 months getting the contractor’s shoddy work up to scratch. When they were done, the senior engineers from three teams left.
One of our engineering teams who normally builds our products in-house was made to bid against contractors who promised the moon.
Them and multiple other teams then had to spend a total of 18 months getting the contractor’s shoddy work up to scratch. When they were done, the lead engineers from three teams left, as well as their manager.
deleted by creator