AsusFan

This isn't particular of Rust. Nim also forces you to deal with all possible branches of a case statement. I'm pretty sure other languages do so as well.

This is just basic type safety stuff.

Start?

You already have to disconnect form the network to be able to use the "offline account" option in the installer (last I checked, which was like a couple of months ago).

So this has been going on for a while.

Edit (merge the other comment I deleted):

To clarify, this was a Home Edition. I understand that the Pro edition doesn't behave this way.

Clickbait headline.

Facebook was not "blocked" - they voluntarily halted the rollout of the feature themselves. NOBODY told them to do this.

Reading between the lines, someone at Facebook's legal department was asleep at the wheel and forgot to provide the authorities with the required documentation. The DPC nudged them a bit and Facebook hit the panic button.

What part of

"The European commission is expected to announce the ban this month, covering the use of the technology in stations, stadiums and shopping centres and lasting three to five years, to allow regulators time to assess the impact of the fast-developing technology."

is confusing you?

If you had followed the links, you'd know that there is a draft for the ban circulating since at least early January, and is due to come into effect sometime in February.

Again: this is being rushed through precisely because of behaviors such as the one you describe.

I fail to understand what there is to be outraged about here. Your exact complaint is in the process of being addressed (assuming you live in the EU).

Did you read the article at all?

The European Union is already planning to introduce a temporary ban on facial recognition in public spaces - PRECISELY because the technology is being rolled out throughout European cities without first assessing the impact on rights such as privacy.

The story is about a leaked draft of a plan to introduce the same technology on the parliament itself - which would be inconsistent with the previous point.

I don't see any hypocrisy here.

I've only toyed with D a bit. IMHO, if you come from a typical OO programming language background (which to me includes C++, Java, Python...), the majority of D will immediately feel familiar, and to a great extent, obvious.

The syntax is familiar and the ideas are familiar. You don't have to learn anything new (not immediately anyway) like you do in Rust (where you basically need to learn EVERYTHING new).

Where this idyllic scenario starts falling apart with when you start actually using it for anything half-serious. Some of the bits feel extremely unintuitive and the documentation is difficult to navigate. There are few examples and the tutorial is a bit spartan. For example, I needed a deque-like container (double-ended queue), but it took me ages to figure out that a) the language actually has one and b) how to use the bloody thing.

There is also a bit of schizophrenia going on, with the "new" ideas and the "old" ideas clashing in some places. For example, they claim that you can run D without a GC (the new), but apparently a good chunk of the stdlib requires the GC (the old), so you're stuck.

I find this all to be unfortunate because D, to me, feels like it could be a better, saner C++.

Well, that sucks.

IMHO, Logitech has (or is it had?) pretty outstanding hardware. I had two RumblePad 2 (the original ones) that survived over 10 years of abuse (buttone mashing, dropping, rage due to losing to my brother 30 times in a row in fighting games). Still the best gamepads I've ever used.

Are there any realistic alternatives to Logitech?

This is the old "announce an inquiry" ploy. This should be familiar to anyone who has watched "Yes, Minister" - or has paid any attention at all to anything ever made in public.

Basically, someone "blows the whistle" and suddenly something that should have gone relatively under the radar blows up on your face. People start asking a lot of difficult questions and making a lot of noise.

So what do you do? You announce a private inquiry (or, to put it in ICANN's terms "We will thoughtfully and thoroughly evaluate the proposed acquisition to ensure that the .ORG registry remains secure, reliable, and stable.").

The point of the inquiry isn't to find out any new facts or correct any problems - it's to stall until this goes out of the public eye (people have short attention spans, and we are in the Holiday season which always helps with "forgetting"), to clear up their names of any wrongdoing (because they reviewed everything thoroughly and found no cause for concern) and to bury the evidence (because some of it will be "accidentally" misplaced into a shredder).

In a month or so, a report will come out saying that there is some cause for concern, but that the danger is either overblown or that their hands are tied so nothing can be done due to this or that circumstance (legal, financial, etc). It will come with a stern paragraph warning that internal guidelines (you know, the ones the public can't see) must be reviewed sometime in the near future (i.e., around the year 2050) to prevent this from happening again, but it will conclude that everyone did their due diligence properly and we were all just victims of circumstances.

In short, better luck next time.

Why yes, people have called me a cynic, why do you ask?

> For the record, Firefox has built-in anti tracker which is enabled by default and they do that on all platforms

Firefox's anti-tracking protection doesn't block google analytics by default. They only block "third party" cookies - which in practice translates as: Google's competition.

The fox knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it.

Better wait for HL3.11 for Workgroups.

Fun.

BTW, I tried a bunch of single word titles (example: red, green, blue, title), and I always seem to get the same result: Bad: 0.4528 - Good: 0.5472

So, apparently, if you want to maximize your "score" with the lowest mental effort, just spam thousands of single word title posts, and then, it's a coin flip for each one :)

That isn't an official communication from Mozilla. That is "someone's" recollection of something "someone" said (or not) at some workshop:

"Fair warning: I don't speak for Mozilla. Everything I say here is a recording of my memories from that event. Nothing more. Nothing less."

(and yes, I noticed that the second "someone" is Mozilla's "Add-ons Policy Policer, Thunderbird Council Chair", but my point still stands: this is something "someone" said, not Mozilla's official position)