sha666sum

Could you please elaborate? I wouldn't think this causes an issue unless they need to link against it, which I don't think they do.

If there was, they could've communicated it clearly already a year ago. There is no reason to give Google the benefit of the doubt, since it's clear they're not trying to get it.

If this rolls out, I'm going to very loudly tell my friends to use Fox, and not stop.

The announcement makes it seem like they were doing so anyways, but they are willing to open source it first.

It runs locally, and if the attacker has that much access, in most scenarios there isn't anything stopping your adversary from just logging your keystrokes and curling the keystore to a remote server.

SMS 2FA is better than nothing if, and only if, you don't allow password resetting by owning the SMS.

> It just seems to mean "this language catches more errors at compile time than the previous language I used."

That is a fair interpretation. I've programmed mostly in C# and Java because that's what was required at the time. I also know enough C and C++ to aim at my toes instead of the entire foot. So the comparison is between strongly typed imperative programming languages which are syntactically close to Rust.

Also, I like that Rust isn't OoP, but try to not get baited into that discussion.

It is (or should be) read as slightly hyperbolic, as there isn't to my knowledge a language that actually works that well. I could water down my message by saying "it mostly works", but then I fail to convey the main reason why I posted in the first place.

I could also instead spend a lot of time and words to explain things about Rust's design that I presume anyone who is slightly interested in the language would already know (specifically: lack of null, strict ownership checking, having to explicitly deal with errors), in order to explain that the language succeeds at solving some of the problems it was specifically designed to solve. But then I would just be repeating things that HN readers presumably already know. Instead I can use a shortcut in my communication which is perfectly understandable if you assume minimal intelligence, and take the other person's comment in good faith.

See, by the time we've reached the bottom of this wall of text, anyone who read this far through my intentional rambling has presumably forgotten my initial point: I had a positive experience with the language.

My experience with Rust is that I have to fight the compiler a lot, but when the program compiles, it works. If it doesn't work, it means there's an error with my file/network paths or I did something in the wrong order, errors which no language can save me from.

Rust also becomes a lot less verbose when you get better at it. The ? operator is especially useful.

Data mining as a business model is fine, as long as the customer is making an informed decision, there are equally good alternatives out there which you can pay for in other means, and you're not drawn to a particular service because of network effects or platform lock-in.

However, customers aren't well informed, and if they were, they wouldn't use these services. Currently customers are getting scammed for their data. This is why we need regulation.

If the copyright expires on author's death, then you're incentivizing convenient accidents and straight up murder.