You are running into the Send Approximation being too conservative. The compiler does not like to see a let binding for a non-Send type and an .await statement in the same scope. It is not (yet) smart enough to know that the non-Send type is already consumed by the time of the .await.
You've already discovered the workaround in your three(). To make it more concise
rust
async fn four() {
let content = do_stuff().err().map(|err| err.to_string());
if let Some(content) = content {
let _ = do_stuff_2(content).await;
}
}
If you rotate the hinge to angle X above the horizon, light coming in from an altitude angle of 2X (=zenith angle of 90deg-2X) will get reflected to into horizontal rays inside the tube.
So you don’t need a mount with adjustable altitude angle - the hinge accomplishes that.
Yeah, the four color problem becomes obvious to the brain if you try to place five territories on a plane (or a sphere) that are all adjacent to each other.
I think one of the earliest attempts at the 4 color problem proved exactly that (that C5 graph cannot be planar). Search engines are failing me in finding the source on this though.
But any way, that result is not sufficient to proof the 4-color theorem. A graph doesn’t need to have a C5 subgraph to make it impossible to 4-color.
Think of two C4 graphs. Choose one vertex from each- call them A and B. Connect A and B together. Now make a new vertex called C and connect C to every vertex except A and B. The result should be a C5-free graph that cannot be 4-colored.
Anything that’s updated with the OS can be rolled back. Now Windows is Windows so Crowdstrike handles things it’s own way. But I bet if Canonical or RedHat were to make their own versions of Crowdstrike, they would push updates through the o regular packages repo, allowing it to be rolled back.
If I give you the entire real line except the point at zero, what will you pick? Whatever you decide on, there will always be a number closer to zero then that.
They have to get smaller to fit the problem statement- if all levers are the same size or have some nonzero minimum size then the full set of levers would be countable!
Now we play the game again 🤓. I start by removing the levers in the field/scale of view of your microscope’s default orientation.
But look at the picture: the levers are not all the same size- they get progressively smaller until (I assume from the ellipsis) they become infinitesimally small. If a cluster has this dense side facing you, then you won’t “see” a lever at all. You would only see a uniform sea of gray or whatever color the levers are. You now have to choose where to zoom in to see your first lever.
You are running into the Send Approximation being too conservative. The compiler does not like to see a let binding for a non-Send type and an
.awaitstatement in the same scope. It is not (yet) smart enough to know that the non-Send type is already consumed by the time of the.await.You've already discovered the workaround in your
three(). To make it more conciseasync fn four() { let content = do_stuff().err().map(|err| err.to_string()); if let Some(content) = content { let _ = do_stuff_2(content).await; } }