TwentyPosts

The reality is that it's much easier to bring a lawsuit over damage done to shareholders (dropped stock value is measurable and easy to see, security fraud), than it is to bring a lawsuit over damage done to users (harm done to individual users is hard to measure).

Pretty sure this is generally called "Anarcho communism".

All of this could've been prevented if Go just had two ways to compile. Debug and release.

The go devs decided against this since they didn't want to build a highly optimizing (read: slow) compiler, but that is missing the point of developer ergonomics.

> These new C4A instances are advertised as offering up to 50% better performance and up to 60% better energy efficiency than their current generation x86 instance types.

Hardware (see also, Google's TPUs and their performance vs. energy cost) is one reason why I'm fairly bullish on Google.

Is anyone surprised by this? Chris Lattner in high regard, sure, but I always expected them to have to quietly walk this one back.

It just didn't seem feasible, for a lot of reasons.

Of course, how feasible it sounded will depend on your interpretation of "superset". I wonder what was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Do we really need more syntactic sugar? Frankly, I am still confused why Python is going for a separate syntax for if expressions instead of just making its regular ifs into expressions

Zig is not even close to a 1.0 beta this year. Or even next year.

For example, the async problem still exists and still has absolutely no viable path forward, or even MVP approach.

Afaik specialisation (in full generality) would cause soundness issues, so it's not even just blocked by the trait solver, it's also blocked by figuring out a 'slimmed down' proposal that fixes those.

And that's not even getting into the problem that it's a fairly controversial feature, since people are worried about terrible, hard to track specialisation trees. (See, inheritance.)

I don't think civilians regularly carry military-grade pagers.

And fwiw, I heard of two tragic cases of children dying, which sounds remarkably low to me so far. If this were truly indiscriminate, this number would be significantly higher and we would've heard of it by now.

Apart from the issue where this ignores how many people got injured (a much larger number), there's a very simple "survival bias" reason (ironically) why this argument doesn't work.

Children (and potentially health workers, as opposed to men of fighting age) are much more likely to die of such an explosion than men of fighting age. In other words, children will be significantly overrepresented here.

Honestly struggling to comprehend how this one isn't neutral.

As far as we know this was a supply-chain attack specifically on military pagers actively used by Hezbollah, and (right now) it looks like most injured are in fact Hezbollah members (which makes sense, since no one else has any reason to carry such a pager). (With some sad and unfortunate exceptions.)

This is semantically not the same as a sum type (as understood in the sense of Rust, which is afaik the academically accepted way)!

Python's `A | B` is a union operation, but in Rust a sum type is always a disjoint union. In Python, if `A = B = None`, then `A | B` has one possible instance.

In Rust, this sum type has two possible instances. This might not sound like a big deal, but the semantics are quite different.

The original rust compiler was written in OCaml. That's not evidence it "had an influence", but it's highly striking considering how many other languages Greydon could've used.

HOTA?