dwattttt

28 ms·

571.
by dwattttt 2y ago
As mentioned elsewhere, no you don't; you block the companies from being paid for providing the service. It's up to the companies to deal with it then.
572.
by dwattttt 2y ago
There's two lookups that can occur, distinguishing them makes it clearer. Looking up the value of an environment variable at runtime is not a const operation, and produces an error if you try to do it in a const fn. Looking up the valu
573.
by dwattttt 2y ago
The context of this is considering requiring companies to pay/acquire a licence to operate in the EU; if a company isn't willing to abide the terms of the license, not operating in the EU is the whole point.
574.
by dwattttt 2y ago
It's hard to compare. Rust has stricter requirements than C, but looser requirements don't mean easier: ever bit shifted by a variable amount? Hope you never relied on shifting "entirely" out of a variable zeroing it.
575.
by dwattttt 2y ago
In a more helpful framing: safe Rust code doesn't need to worry about its own correctness, it just is. Unsafe code can be incorrect (or unsound), and needs to be careful about it. Part of being careful is that safe code can call the un
576.
by dwattttt 2y ago
The places where undefined behaviour can occur are also limited in scope; you insist that that part isn't true, because operations outside those unsafe blocks can impact their safety. That's only true at the same level of scrutiny
577.
by dwattttt 2y ago
It's true, but I think it's only fair if you hold Rust to this analysis, other languages should too; the scrutiny you're implying you need in an unsafe Rust block needs to be applied to all C code, because all C code could de
578.
by dwattttt 2y ago
Thank you for reminding me of the phrase "damning with faint praise"
579.
by dwattttt 2y ago
> In the absence of credit scores, higher quality borrowers will be charged higher interest rates or require higher collateral, since they are less differentiated from average quality borrowers, and/or access to credit will be restr
580.
by dwattttt 2y ago
While it's unlikely as neat as this, the blog post we're all commenting on is a "I thought we had a 10-15% speedup, but it turned out to be an LLVM optimisation misbehaving". And Zig (for now) uses LLVM for optimised bui
581.
by dwattttt 2y ago
Although also responsive, the solution to incorrectly applying models _isn't_ to get more models, it's to understand the mistakes being made in applying them.
582.
by dwattttt 2y ago
I don't think there's any particular reason for you to jump out of boot services mode if you're just having fun. Runtime mode means the firmware gives up control of devices etc, because you're meant to take over them. As
583.
by dwattttt 2y ago
It's even easier to produce a hobby OS targeting UEFI these days; less direct ASM required (maybe not any?), and the firmware can provide lots of things for you, assuming you're willing to stay in boot services mode. Browsing htt
584.
by dwattttt 2y ago
Both of them. The two groups you named.
585.
by dwattttt 2y ago
> The advice on that page also specifies to not make the value semantically meaningful, which I take to mean to never set it to that value explicitly. I've taken to coding my C enums with the first value being "Invalid", i
586.
by dwattttt 2y ago
And people don't want the government anywhere near their lives, until people with big sticks start poking at them instead. The US populace can stick its head in the sand & say the rest of the world doesn't need them, but what
587.
by dwattttt 2y ago
Elsewhere in the commit is a change of wording. That particular part of the commit didn't have the updated statement.
588.
by dwattttt 2y ago
Normally I'd totally agree, but looking closely, that's a _comment_. If it is a load bearing comment, we're looking at an assembler bug there. EDIT: Looking more closely, it's less absurd than this. The comment is referr
589.
by dwattttt 2y ago
In a similar vein, there's no inherent reason to use a calculator over doing calculations on paper. Ever seen a paper run out of battery?
590.
by dwattttt 2y ago
> By "left out", I mean that there are multiple solutions to the equations of motion which are compatible with the initial values of the situation. It's worth noting the distinction between a model and the thing the model
591.
by dwattttt 2y ago
They were, sadly, proved right not by Apple's actions, but by the kernel development community.
592.
by dwattttt 2y ago
I've never quite understood enough about types to know why, but: it's more like the difference between read-only and write-only. One of the variances is safe if you only read, and one is safe if you only write.
593.
by dwattttt 2y ago
> Reporting culture won't help you when your Boeing 737 MAX 8 has just started an uncommanded nosedive! It should have helped by reporting this many, many times before said uncontrolled nosedive.
594.
by dwattttt 2y ago
I believe Rust has added the ability to mark FFI functions as safe to call at their definition site ( https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/10/17/Rust-1.82.0.html#safe-... ) That way functions can be marked as accura
595.
by dwattttt 2y ago
It's unfortunate: a simple example is effectively all plumbing, and those would touch all the (unsafe) native interfaces. A driver that actually does something interesting would be able to have unsafe interfaces at the boundary, and mo
596.
by dwattttt 2y ago
This was in response to the size of rand & dependencies, trying to be the safe default for every use. I don't have a strong opinion on whether it belongs in the stdlib.
597.
by dwattttt 2y ago
I think it's more a conscious decision to default to a CSPRNG unless you know better. If you know don't know the difference, a safer default means less problems. EDIT: it's a similar situation to general purpose allocators. I
598.
by dwattttt 2y ago
Rust does permit multiple incompatible versions of the same library in the same environment. The types/objects from one version are distinct from the types/objects of the other, it's a type error to try mix them. But you can
599.
by dwattttt 2y ago
Translating the word Fitness from a term of art makes this very clear: if you said "good enough to survive", no one would question the statement "I wonder why they survive. Guess they must be 'good enough to survive&#x27
600.
by dwattttt 2y ago
Not knowing what it's being spent on is separate to knowing whether it's being spent

More ›