If the iPhone had been hyped like AI is today people would have claimed you could replace your hammer, saw, garden hose and cooking utensils with an iPhone.

Meanwhile current AI is pretty much useless for any purpose where you actually need to rely on a decent chance to get quality results without human review.

Is it really that hard to distinguish genuine revolutions (iPhone, Rust, AI, reusable rockets, etc.) from hyped nonsense (Blockchain/web3, Metaverse, etc.)?

It is funny that you list AI under genuine revolutions while I would list it (or at least 90% of it) under hyped nonsense.

From the perspective of a library author even evaluating if a given bug could be considered a vulnerability is extra effort that is not strictly useful to the project itself, just to those using it who want to not apply every single update.

I would say this very issue is at the core of the current CVE discussions that leads more and more projects to become their own CNAs.

Security people and corporate downstream consumers of security feeds want to invest the minimum of effort while pushing as much of the evaluation what is and isn’t a vulnerability on the authors of library authors as possible. However, this does not work. A vulnerability can only ever truly be evaluated by investing significant amounts of effort in the abstract way that is required to do it in an upstream project. On the other hand, at point of use it is often trivial to discard the possibility of an exploit because the potentially vulnerable code is not even used by the project using the library that contains the code.

No, I actually meant it as in the traditional meaning of literally. As in

[lints.clippy]
unwrap_used = "warn"
expect_used = "warn"

along with a pre-commit hook that does

cargo clippy -D warnings

(deny warnings).

There are always better ways to write an unwrap, usually via pattern matching and handling the error cases properly, at the very least logging them.

There are a few very questionable things in there. Unwrap should literally never appear in production code so if your code base uses it so often that you want a short-hand syntax for it that calls into doubt everything else you wrote.

In 99% of those cases you would want it to resolve … components though.

const expressions are evaluated at compile time and can be used in locations where you would have to otherwise specify a literal (or something that amounts to a named literal like a const value).

Der Ausstieg war in 2023, nicht in 2000. Die Kraftwerke die wir 20 Jahre vorher schon abgeschaltet haben hätten wir wohl kaum weiter betreiben können. Aber eigentlich lohnt es sich kaum euch Atomtrollen zu antworten wenn ihr mit solchen “Argumenten” kommt.

Am schlimmsten finde ich deren haarsträubende Standardbehauptung, jeder der gegen Atomkraft ist sei automatisch pro Kohle und andere Fossile.

Das ist zwar auch schlimm aber noch schlimmer finde ich eigentlich dass komplett ignoriert wird dass Deutschland auch vor dem Atomausstieg nur einen einstelligen Prozentsatz des Stroms aus den Atomkraftwerken gedeckt hat. Es wird aber immer so dargestellt als ob es sich hier um eine massive Verschiebung des Energiemixes gehandelt hätte.

It solves virtually none of them, it is pretty good at destroying all the evidence needed to actually fix the problem for good though.

Der Wartungsaufwand um Python-Code zu installieren und auf neue Versionen hoch zu ziehen ist deutlich höher als bei Rust, einerseits für die Entwickler aber auch für die Admins.

, it’s there to efficiently move as many people as possible, as safely as possible.

So you are saying you are in favor of banning cars from the street too then?

Sozusagen ein DACH-Verband?

I am certainly less invested in huge budget games than ever. Maybe developers need to consider the kind of games they are making in a bit more detail than just by platform.

Also to advocate for a specific tab size while also advocating for hard tabs is nonsense. The one flimsy claim to usefulness tabs have is that different people can use different tab sizes and all at the low, low cost of everyone having five times more work to use tabs for indentations and spaces for alignment and thus having to use visual whitespace of some kind.

Some sort of marketing bullshit generator I assume by the text of the post?

I would argue that advertising is not just a privacy concern or a nuisance, it often also influences people to make decisions that are highly damaging to their health, the environment, democracy in their country,…

I would like to see something that is less focussed on social media and more on building something together like Wikipedia. One thing that comes to mind would be mapping out all political statements along with arguments and evidence to support or falsify them and the relationships between them (e.g. “if you believe x is a big problem in society and you believe y is the perfect form of government then you must believe y solves x”).

A lot of our political discussions seem quite repetitive and go in circles because each argument is presented in a very shallow way. Something to counteract that would be welcome and I think it could work quite well in a federated way since people with different political views would probably want to contribute the supporting and that falsifying sides for each statement.

I saw a user profile earlier that said

“There is nothing worse than having a Cranberries song stuck in your head, in your heeeeeeead…”