* The performance difference can be pretty massive depending on scenarios. Sure, most programs don't need it, but still
* Rust has not only memory safety but full safety around it. For instance, in Java if you iterate over a list while mutating it you'll get a runtime error. In Rust, it won't compile, preventing you from a possible bug later on
* The time you spend learning Rust is so much time saved afterwards because the language is specifically designed to reduce the risk of programming errors. Many things like the absence of a `null` value like we have in Java is an immense time saver when your program gets bigger
I mean plain iteration uses function calls. Iterators are a more advanced concept that needs wrapper objects and function calls.
> as this is often the sign of a bug.
Why? I've just written that yesterday, I had never a problem with that. For example after deleting an element from an array I need to commit this change, by adjusting the size, etc. Why is it so unexpected that I also need to adjust the index? The index needs to be modified anyway.
Where is the notion coming from that this is less preferable than the workarounds, like marking some elements for deletion and then iterating a second time or by making a second container and moving everything that shouldn't be deleted (.filter) ?
But I need to adjust indices for a container when modifying anyways, regardless whether it occurs in a loop. It's not different than doing not doing it in the loop. Also I'm also modifying the loop index anyways, since I want to iterate, not always touch the same object.
> And sometimes it's a simple bug where you never meant to modify the collection.
How do you accidentally modify an array, which would be different from any other variable?
If the iterator abstracts the iteration away, it should also abstract over the modification.
> Like you cause any other simple bug.
Yes, but we don't forbid modifying other things, just because you could modify them by accident, because you want to modify them some of the time. Why does a[i] = ... needs to be prevented, but a = ... is fine?
> If the iterator abstracts the iteration away, it should also abstract over the modification.
That's no longer a simple iterator; it's a collection wrapper that represents in-iteration collection. It can be useful, and it is possible to write! But I don't think this is what programming languages should offer as their default iterator. Also, how do you solve the problem of mutation done through the collection without involving the iterator?
> Yes, but we don't forbid modifying other things, just because you could modify them by accident, because you want to modify them some of the time. Why does a[i] = ... needs to be prevented, but a = ... is fine?
I agree, this is not a strong reason on its own, but it strengthen the main reason.
> That's no longer a simple iterator; it's a collection wrapper that represents in-iteration collection.
I am not using a language with iterators in daily work, but that doesn't sound like a real problem to me. The iterator is already provided by the container type and the container already supports removing things:
> The time you spend learning Rust is so much time saved afterwards because the language is specifically designed to reduce the risk of programming errors
Yup, and you will get mainline linux kernel support and UEFI too.
No mincing around with specially blessed SD card images and non-standard boot procedures.
I was actually curious to see if this actually exists, originally I thought a pi 1 with a cheap keyboard and ssd, but of course the pi 1 doesn't support ssd's anyway. In the end I found an old thinkpad on ebay that technically meets the spec (E-50, i3, 8gb ram and 128gb ssd), though preowned is kind of cheating. New I think you might be right, even without the keyboard.
To be clear I think the price of the pi 500+ is pretty much fine for what it is, I was just curious.
What's crazy to me is why they didn't go for that kind of implementation. This works well, ensures privacy, can be audited easily, and doesn't need a f*cking app on my phone.
If you read the guidelines they actually want to implement a double-blind approach with ZKPs, which imo is significantly better than a challenge-response pub key system in term of privacy.
If you're not familiar this would mean the verifier doesn't learns anything except a statement about attributes (age, license, etc); and the EU doesn't learn what attributes have been tried to verify or by who.
What would need to happen in the United States to implement a reliable ZKP age verification system - and how long would it take to roll it out?
Asking because it feels like the Titanic has sunk, and we're eschewing a floating door because the coast guard has regulation conformant life rafts that would work better.
> United States to implement a reliable ZKP age verification system
(my emphesis)
Realistically at least 3-4 years, assuming they want to keep the same goals as eIDAS. I think the (software) implementation will be the least costly part, time-wise; but it takes a long time before everyone adopts a new social system. Especially in the US where there has been no precedent for digital identification. Even with full control of your own ID & and solid implementation details, there will be push-back just for suggesting that people/companies should adopt it.
Most people's TV show ads nowadays, be it Samsung or a competitor. The thing is, people don't care about ads. They just deal with it. Hence how Samsung gets away with this sh*t.
The fact that this is true feels like we as a society just shrugged and gave up about something like, say, ubiquitous lice or ticks. "Yeah, everyone just has those, all the time."
What about it? That's not something that "everyone had all the time" and just accepted it, like ads.
We only saw that attitude towards COVID because it affected people for a relatively short amount of time, and majority of them suffered relatively minor symptoms.
People not caring about others isn't exactly noteworthy. People not caring about themselves is different.
They care but not enough for "the free market" to generate an ad free competitor that can be trusted to never show ads for the lifetime of the product. Especially because they'd have to charge more for that product.
Government regulation is the only way to stop this.
I've got a fridge that I trust to not show ads for the lifetime of the product, because it doesn't have a screen like that. It's pretty new, too, and fairly nice.
So such competitors exist. I can't imagine that they will cease to exist.
I've been thinking the same. Our GE fridge is just... a refrigerator/freezer. No screen, no internet connection. We went looking for that.
Our Miele dishwasher... no internet connection.
Our GE range / stove wants an internet connection and a phone app to use it's broiler features (I think). They're actually gated behind internet connectivity. We do without it.
Our home thermostat was installed with wi-fi everything... Which we promptly disconnected when the installers left. The same for the irrigation system. We want to use the device to control it, not have to connect to some server on the internet to manage our heat, A/C, or watering schedule.
Don't get me started on looking for "dumb phones" for our child.
I mean, to be fair, most people’s TVs have shown ads since forever. Granted, those ads were distributed by the broadcaster rather than the TV manufacturers, but the association between TV and ads goes back far enough that it’s just sort of part of the cultural consciousness. I’m not sure that means that people “don’t care about ads”, especially when they are appearing in their homes through channels other than television. It may be that people who normally wouldn’t accept having ads on their devices have a blind spot for TV ads, just because that’s how TV has always been.
For the same price you have the Minisforum UM760 Slim which should be 100% compatible and provide VASTLY superior performances. Or you can check cheaper models that would have the same level of performance as the A5.
Geekom make nice products but they are usually both very expensive and very noisy compared to competitors. Their selling point is mainly their top-notch design, but I find these to be function-over-form most of the time.
Yeah, definitely boils down to how much of a factor the aesthetics of the 'tiny carts' is for you in the whole experience. I can imagine some creative modding that would make a collection of themed USBs just as appealing, if not more :)
I disgree. Other people were saying it's broken too. Reasonable company behavior here would be 1 tweet "we'll look into it", and then either "we reproduced and are working on a fix" or "looks good to us please contact support so we can investigate your particular issue". But there's no reason to initially make users jump through hoops.
That response is probably standard support procedure. I think it’s pretty reasonable behavior. Could it be better? Sure. Is the person handling Twitter interactions doing their job? Also sure.
This comment section's been illuminating to see who has probably never worked public-facing support or service industry.
There's no amount of money you can pay to make this behavior not shitty. Shitty behavior is never a good look, but sometimes it's understandable. If you refrain from being shitty, you won't have to worry about whether or not it's understandable.
Also, the only reason that someone can be shitty and get results is because other people aren't. (In this case, "submitting" a bug report via Twitter and still getting a resolution is possible because other people reported it through the proper channels.)
