There are places where car is simply the mean of transport - to the point where using the car is preferred to literally a five minutes walk.
In contexts like this, using a car is perceived as a right - restricting usage doesn't make people think "I'll take the chance to use the bike", rather "How the f*ck do I get there now?".
For things you put on your skin that could be absorbed, shouldn't the limit take into account the area touching your skin? If I lay on a bed containing 10 mg/kg BPA, I would absorb a lot more than if I touch a headphone. So maybe it should be mg/kg*m^2 or something?
>> In other words up to 10% of all the crashes Firefox users see are not software bugs, they're caused by hardware defects!
> Bold claim. From my gut feeling this must be incorrect; I don't seem to get the same amount of crashes using chromium-based browsers such as thorium.
That's a misinterpretation. The finding refers to the composition of crashes, not the overall crash rate (which is not reported by the post). Brought to the extreme, there may have been 10 (reported) crashes in history of Firefox, and 1 due to faulty hardware, and the statement would still be correct.
> There was a level of creativity back in those days that we seem to not have as much nowaydays. Now things seem to be based more on math and things like signing.
Copy protections nowadays are actually extremely complex - just look at Denuvo and VMProtect. I presume that nowadays there are less copy protection schemes because producing a resilient one is too complex for small developer teams.
Carabinieri are actually military-status police force in Italy, which is a different setup from the FBI in the US.
Calling them the Italian FBI, is ironically quite funny, because in Italy they’re the butt of a lot of jokes - "carabiniere" is a common stand-in for "someone dumb".
> Linux is still not user friendly enough. Products from two decades ago are more user friendly than modern "mainstream" disros.
> Gimp is an ugly beast with a bad name. Nobody's using that unless they're a Linux nerd.
It depends on the use case. The vast majority of computer users nowadays use only the browser and an office suite. Even email clients are a thing of the past.
It's true that Gimp doesn't have a great UX, but who spends time photoretouching on the computer, when one can do it in a few seconds on the phone?
It cuts both ways - in those environments, very unhealthy lifestyles (high stress, drug abuse…) are quite common, if not the norm, so even people starting with healthy lifestyles are under significant pressure.
"Zero cost abstractions" refers to some features of the language that provide functionalities with no runtime cost, e.g. (safe) iterators, not to a presumed simplicity of the whole language. Therefore, this is not mutually exclusive with the fact that certain concepts in Rust require more complexity than their counterpart in other languages (after all, the complexities of the borrow checker don't exist in C).
In general, and it applies to the referenced article, programming with a high level of control over the implementation is complex, and there's no way around it. This article explains the concept: https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html.
> "Zero cost abstractions" refers to some features of the language that provide functionalities with no runtime cost...
In that case, all languages provide zero cost abstractions.
> programming with a high level of control over the implementation is complex,
> (after all, the complexities of the borrow checker don't exist in C).
The point of an abstraction is to _hide_ complexity.
> This article explains the concept
The article is only half-right. People complain both about the semantics and the syntax, because Rust's implementation of both presents (in some cases) a huge cognitive load that simply doesn't exist in other languages.
Very hard to estimate, depending on the domain, I'd say 1.5-2x as much.
When it comes to programming in languages and frameworks I'm familiar with, there is virtually no increase in terms of speed (I may use it for double checks), however, it may still help me discover concepts I didn't know.
When it comes to areas I'm not familiar with:
- most of the time, the increase is substantial, for example when I need a targeted knowledge (e.g. finding few APIs in giant libraries), or when I need to understand an existing solution
- in some cases, I waste a lot of time, when the LLM hallucinates a solution that doesn't make sense
- in some other cases, I do jobs that otherwise I wouldn't have done at all
I stress two aspects:
1. it's crucial IMO to treat LLMs as a learning tool before a productivity one, that is, to still learn from its output, rather than just call it a day once "it works"
2. days of later fixing can save hours of upfront checking. or the reverse, whatever one prefers :)
- You created profiles for students without consent
- You enabled anonymous posts about identifiable individuals
- There was no effective moderation/control system
Core issue: once you're aware of harmful content, you’re expected to act. If you don't address it in a reasonable time, you can become legally liable.
reply