Chai-T-Rex

If a Rust function can panic, there's generally a non-panicking alternative. For example, `Vec` indexing has `vec[n]` as the panicking version and `vec.get(n)` as the version that can return `None` when there's nothing at that index.

I'm a bit lost on how the bitcoin supply isn't in the hands of the rich. Do they give out free mining equipment and electricity to the poor to equalize things?

Based on your own standard, I'm wondering why people should take you seriously when you use terms like 'rabid'.

They didn't say discrete GPU, they said GPUs, which includes integrated GPUs.

The author doesn't give the impression that they understand what they're reading.

> But she gives the game away when she writes: “Maybe my relationship with dreaming wasn’t like everyone else’s.” Not like everyone else’s, no. But certainly like that of many people who suffer from recurring and terrifying nightmares.

Obviously, she's talking about the fact that she discovered that there were some people who didn't have her kind of nightmare issues. Realizations that your invisible traits aren't shared by everyone is a fairly common experience.

Yet, this is twisted so that the absurd criticism that, while writing her book after she found out that the condition is shared with enough people to be given a name, she just doesn't realize that there are some people who share her condition. Good thing the author pointed that out to her, I guess.

> Eloise writes that, according to the Mayo Clinic, nightmare disorder “only affects around 4-5% of adults, which shocked me: did adults really not have nightmares?” It’s as if she genuinely does not know the difference between 4% and zero.

She literally just got finished mentioning the 4%, which is why it should be obvious that she's talking about her realization that some adults exist that didn't suffer that condition rather than a statement about literally all other adults.

And the last sentence there gives the game away: she obviously realizes the difference and literally just mentioned it, and so she must have meant something else.

Why would a person who did what they did stop for a bit? It's just not part of their personality.

You can't support a point about private companies in the US in general with a point solely about powerful global corporations that are US companies.

I'm not sure that's down to Venezuela's power companies. That's right about when the US was trying to coup their government, right? Stuxnet's origin story can tell us a bit about what kinds of sabotage they pull.

>The volunteers recognised cloned speech as such only half the time (ie, no better than chance).

That's incorrect. It's like saying that one lottery ticket has a 50% chance of winning. If they're fooling people half the time, that's way better than chance, since there are so many ways of screwing things up.

There are already things like SCTP.

One thing that shouldn't be discounted is survivorship bias. The machines from the 1960s that broke early on aren't around anymore. The only machines from the 1960s that are left are those which last a long time.