Phil_Latio

UPnP is not disabled by default on all routers, especially older ones. So devices may just try to port-forward certain control or media ports.

Yeah it's BS. Tesla uses lidar where it makes sense: They have a small lidar fleet to collect ground truth depth data for better vision estimation. This part is long solved.

> why John no longer does public presentations(as people keep stealing his unfinished ideas)

That's your opinion or you have a source for that?

Well, the C3 developer could add more fine grained control if people need it...

I don't really see what's your problem. It's not so much different than disabling asserts in production. Some people don't do that, because they rather crash than walking into invalid program state - and that's fine too. It largely depends on the project in question.

> documentation clearly states that it's UB to violate them

Only in "fast" mode. The developer has the choice:

> Compilation has two modes: “safe” and “fast”. Safe mode will insert checks for out-of-bounds access, null-pointer deref, shifting by negative numbers, division by zero, violation of contracts and asserts.

Then look at the the average and compare with France. Germany causes 6 times more Co2 stemming from energy production.

The energy mix in Germany leads to a situation where electric cars are dirtier than diesel (for the first ~200000 km / 125000 miles driven).

This argument, namely that politics can lower the price (by emitting extra certificates) when it gets too high, contradicts the whole reason for the mechanism in the first place: They claim a free market can find the right price better than politicians. But then they interfer anyway?

The price will rise much larger than a dumb, fixed increase-schedule would. Because the "market" wants it's profit.

It's just one piece of the puzzle. The cost for Co2 certificates is a more major reason. Starting 2027, hedge funds can buy these certificates which will be the nail in the coffin. It's basically Bitcoin on steroids with the difference that people buy Bitcoin out of free will, while the industry is forced to buy these certificates which get more scarce over time.

> Whether or not GC is a negligible portion of your runtime is a characteristic of your program, not your implementation language.

Of course, but how many developers choose C _because_ it does not have a GC vs developers who choose C# but then work around it with manual memory management and unsafe pointers? ....... It's > 1000 to 1

There are even new languages like C3, Odin, Zig or Jai that have a No-GC-mindset in the design. So why you people insist that deliberately unsafe languages suddenly need a GC? There a other new languages WITH a GC in mind. Like Go. Or pick Rust - no GC but still memory safe. So what's the problem again? Just pick the language you think fits best for a project.

> Because about 99% of the time the garbage collect is a negligible portion of your runtime

In a system programming language?

Well the whole clean energy transformation in Germany has a tax payer burden of 3 trillion or more till 2045. Frances nuclear plants didn't even receive 1 trillion of subsidies in total since their existence (according to my quick research). But let's say France and Germany are even in subsidies or France pays slightly more: I thought it's about Co2? Again: France has 1/6 of the Co2 emissions compared to Germany. Just by that metric it's a colossal failure!

When you say Germany can't just build nuclear plants now you are right. But the solution can't be to expand solar and wind, while destroying coal and nuclear plants - which is what they do. The last minister for these matters had the unironical idea to shutdown industry when the renewables don't produce. The idea was to move from a demand driven industry, to a supply driven industry. Total madness. The idea to produce wind in the south of Germany is part of such madness.

I wrote aggressively expanded. It doesn't make sense to build wind in a region where it's only profitable due to subsidies.

> Wind power is so cheap

Germany has the highest energy costs in the world. The alledged price points for wind and solar do not account for the total cost: Negative electricity prices when there is too much demand, increased costs managing the grid (redispatch), the need for a double-infrastructure (because when there is no wind or solar produced, someone else has to produce)

France has lower electricity prices than Germany, while emitting only 16% (!!!!!) Co2 compared to Germany. Conclusion: Germanies "clean energy" way is a total failure. Electric cars in Germany are "dirtier" than gasoline cars due to the energy mix.

Germany pays about the same each year: Wind is turned off, but the investors get their guaranteed profit from the tax payer. Meanwhile wind is aggresively expanded. They even go so far to now build wind in the south of Germany and then offset the lower average wind speed by increasing subsidies...