The EU is fairly consistent in its application of fines. I think what the poster is commenting on is that when Meta collects data it's "Meta is spying", but when ByteDance collects data it's "China is spying".
The psyche of the average Blind poster needs to be scientifically studied. There is something deeply wrong with the way those people talk (and presumably think) about money.
The implications of the "defense" tech boom are horrific because the only way for this industry to achieve the hockey stick growth demanded by Silicon Valley investors is a hot war.
It's also very depressing for students to talk like it's a foregone conclusion that people must die. Youthful naivete isn't a bad thing and I much prefer the idealistic pro-Palestinian protesters to this sort of "people are going to die (and in the process I'm going to make a bunch of money)" attitude.
That's an interesting take. War is very good business for the military-industrial complex. VC profits will come from money spent. There is a gargantuan amount of waste/excess profit in the complex, I have no problem with efficiencies eating away enormous profits at the incumbents to produce large profits with overall reduced spend at new tech, but the incumbents know how to fight for their revenue so I expect increases overall.
pcwalton is responsible for a lot of the rust borrow checker, so, not a neutral opinion. ive posted it too many times on this thread but it seems borrow checking analysis may be possible for zig (if the zig team should want to)
I highly suspect it won't be feasible for the same reason it isn't feasible in C++: you could technically implement it, but tons of existing patterns in the ecosystem would become impossible to express, so in practice it would end up creating a different language. From a skim, the CLR project you linked to claims that metadata will probably be needed in order to enforce aliasable xor mutable, and I agree.
> tons of existing patterns in the [C/C++] ecosystem would become impossible to express
Well, the really harsh way of putting this is that the patterns break for a reason; they rely on global claims about the program, so they aren't genuinely robust in the context of code that sits within a large, constantly evolving codebase that can't be practically surveyed in its entirety. Rust is very good at picking patterns that can be verified with a comparatively straightforward, "local" analysis that broadly follows the same structure as the actual program syntax. Safety claims that rely on "global" properties which cannot be kept within a self-contained, module-like portion of the code are essentially what the unsafe marker is intended for. And this is exactly what idiomatic C/C++ code often gives you.
This is actually why I think that proposals like Safe C++ should get a lot more attention that they do at present. Yes, Safe C++ changes what's idiomatic in the language but it does so in a way that's broadly sensible (given our increased attention to memory safety) especially in a context of "programming in the large".
you can go a long way before getting to aliasable xor mutable, and the metadata doesn't require a language change, theres an example in there on how to bind metadata with no language changes.
The same reason why they're not self-hosting. They want compiler performance to be in the top C, C++, Rust, Zig tier. OCaml isn't slow, but at best it's in the second Java, C#, etc. tier.
People who moved to SF in 96 like GP are much more politically influential than the "colonizers" who arrived more recently. And yes, someone who arrived in the late 90s calling other people "colonizers" is hilarious.
reply