I think you’re both right. The problem in this discussion is that “justified” really depends on perspective. I agree with the other guy it is justified… from Trump’s perspective. I agree with you it is not justified for the American people.
I’ll add one: to appreciate the beauty of life itself, or in other words: be happy.
That does tie in with the “it gets better” and you’ll have to trust me when I say that happiness can be found.
But for whatever it’s worth, I wasn’t always happy, and I went through very dark places in the past. Yet I found happiness in multiple places and I honestly don’t feel like I need to pretend anymore.
However that might not mean a lot if I didn’t give some pointers to help you find it. To find happiness the best thing you can is to find peace within yourself, which implies becoming at peace with who you are. First of all, don’t let the sadness in the world distract you from your own happiness, because the best way to combat the world’s sadness is by being happy yourself. Then you can become an example for others to become happy too. And second, don’t assume it means nothing. We live in a spiritual place that’s mysterious and wonderful. There’s endless happiness to be found there. If you don’t think that’s true, I believe you owe it to yourself to explore so that you may find it. Because you can. And when you do, things will get better. Trust.
Silver actually interacts horribly with and ruins the flavour of some foods. There’s a reason why silver cups often have gold plating on the inside to not ruin the taste of wine.
That’s not just pedantry, that’s unnecessarily narrow-minded. Ever heard of the corrupted heart? According to your definition, that’s an impossibility, unless the heart belongs to someone in authority, or something, I guess.
The point is, there is more than a single interpretation of things, and there is not a singular definition of corruption. Anyone can be corrupted, and giving examples that show that lawlessness permeates every level of society is a great way of showing that corruption is likely endemic in the culture.
This rant actually turned out to be more thoughtful than I expected on the surface. I’m afraid a lot of reasonable readers will be turned off by its title and either not read it at all or be primed to dismiss it from the start. Too bad, it deserves an honest read.
I dunno, I have a Framework laptop and had a keyboard issue with it. It still worked, but one of the keys didn’t register well. So they sent me a new keyboard and I sent them back the old one after I’d swapped it. Not a single day was I without my laptop, which sounds quite unlikely compared to other laptop brands and the support you get (or not) with those.
No buyer’s remorse here.
I can take this one: Because he doesn’t actually care about creating anything of value. If he truly believed in it, you’re right, Twitter or even Tesla’s software engineers would be on the chopping block and he’d replace them with AI as soon as he can. But he doesn’t.
He knows this is a longshot. Most likely to fail, but very profitable on the near-impossible chance that it works. But he doesn’t care even if the odds are truly impossible. Because this is an investment opportunity, so people will throw money his way, no matter what the odds.
People assume he’s an idiot, and he is. But he’s not stupid, at least not in every way. He certainly has a skill for separating others from their money, which he happily takes advantage of.
That’s fair, although technically you could catch SIGSEGV and release resources that way too.
Also, given that resources will be reclaimed by the OS regardless of which kind of crash we’re talking about, the effective difference is usually (but not always) negligible.
Either way, no user would consider a panic!() to be not a crash because destructors ran. And most developers don’t either.
“An abrupt exit”, more commonly known as a “crash”.
If you’re going to argue that an exit through panic!() is not a crash, I will argue that your definition of a crash is just an abrupt exit initiated by the OS. In other words, there’s no meaningful distinction as the result is the same.
I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted. While I don’t share your conviction, I do admit it’s certainly a possibility.
The advantage of doing things that way is that code becomes much more portable. We may finally reach the goal of “write once, run anywhere”, because the AI may write all the platform specific code.
It does make a big assumption that the AI output is reliable enough though. At times people will want to tweak the output, so how are they gonna go about that? Maybe if the language is based on Markdown, you can inject snippets of code where necessary. But if you have to do that too often, such a language will lose its appeal.
There’s a lot of unknowns, but I see why it’s a tempting idea.
You know, as a full-time Linux user, I think I rather have game developers continue to create Windows executables.
Unlike most software, games have a tendency to be released, then supported for one or two years, and then abandoned. But meanwhile, operating systems and libraries move on.
If you have a native Linux build of a game from 10 years ago, good luck trying to run it on your modern system. With Windows builds, using Wine or Proton, you actually have better chances running games from 10 or even 20 years ago.
Meanwhile, thanks to Valve’s efforts, Windows builds have incentive to target Vulkan, they’re getting tested on Linux. That’s what we should focus on IMO, because those things make games better supported on Linux. Which platform the binary is compiled for is an implementation detail… and Win32 is actually the more stable target.
tsc is (very) slow and there are also no convenient ways to interact with it from Rust.
So it saves a lot development and CI time to roll our own. The downside is that our inference still isn’t as good as tsc of course, but we’re hopeful the community can help us get very close at least.
To summarise: Bombing had a profound effect on depressing morale through inducing defeatism, fear and apathy. Bombing did not harden popular resolve against the US. The hate and anger it aroused was directed against the Nazi regime, not the Allies.
Heh, I agree with everything you said, but I’m afraid such a framework is impossible to create, let alone implement. It’s impossible to foresee the infinite possibilities for people to screw themselves through bad decisions, so all you’d create is a lot of bureaucracy to still end up in the same place.
It’s that the compiler doesn’t help you with preventing race conditions. This makes some problems so hard to solve in C that C programmers simply stay away from attempting it, because they fear the complexity involved.
It’s a variation of the same theme: Maybe a C programmer could do it too, given infinite time and skill. But in practice it’s often not feasible.
I’m not saying you can’t, but it’s a lot more work to use such solutions, to say nothing about their quality compared to std solutions in other languages.
And it’s also just one example. If we bring multi-threading into it, we’re opening another can of worms where C doesn’t particularly shine.
I think you’re both right. The problem in this discussion is that “justified” really depends on perspective. I agree with the other guy it is justified… from Trump’s perspective. I agree with you it is not justified for the American people.