5C5C5C

joined 1 year ago
[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 14 points 3 days ago

She would have lost Michigan and Wisconsin by even larger margins if she went with Shapiro instead of Walz.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

I'm not convinced he really believes that OpenAI is going to roll out AGI in the next ten years, but I'm completely sure he's determined that it's a good marketing strategy to make people believe that he believes it.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

These graphs only cover the demographic of 18-29 year olds, which historically do lean heavily towards progressive.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago

OP really needs to heed this advice. Modifying things in the cache will cause breakages that will confuse the hell out of you.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Calculus was invented in the late 1600s, almost 2000 years after the Roman aqueducts were built. The Roman engineer would know some geometry, but certainly not calculus.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 12 points 1 month ago

Google is an enormous company which operates flatter than you'd expect for an organization of its size. It's entirely possible that someone from Google was involved in organizing this (i.e. booking the venue) without having buy-in from leadership. Once leadership became aware after being asked about it, they may have shut the whole thing down because they knew the optics would be bad.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 38 points 1 month ago

Speaking as an annoying Rust user, you're being bigoted. I'm annoying, but the vast majority of Rust users are normal people who you wouldn't even know are using Rust.

Don't lump all the others in with me, they don't deserve that.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 44 points 1 month ago (8 children)

How exactly is an individual supposed to determine which cops will be good and which will abuse their power?

Just as we can't make a general statement that all cops are definitely bad, you can't make a general statement that all cops in any particular country or town will be good.

From a basic risk management viewpoint, it doesn't make sense for anyone to accept the risk that any given cop won't abuse their position, even if we were willing to accept that very few would actually do so.

Cops have an extremely privileged status in society and the amount of damage that a bad one can do to an individual - on purpose or even by accident - is incalculable, including setting up an innocent person for capital punishment as we're seeing unfold in Missouri right now.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You'd be amazed at how resistant most people are to anything that feels unfamiliar, even if it's good for them. Coal and oil jobs are familiar, green jobs are not.

It should be as simple as you're suggesting, but sadly it isn't.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Best practice when using .unwrap() in production code is to put a line of documentation immediately above the use of .unwrap() that describes the safety invariants which allow the unwrap to be safe.

Since code churn could eventually cause those safety invariants to be violated, I think it's not a bad thing for a blunt audit of .unwrap() to bring your attention to those cases and prompt to reevaluate if the invariants are still satisfied.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago

But only if pattern matching were included, otherwise they would be as unpleasant as C++'s std::variant.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This makes a lot of sense, but the functions were Rust bindings for plain C functions, they weren't function pointers. Granted I could have put pointers to the function bindings into fields in a struct and stored that struct in the mutex, but the ability to anyhow call the bindings would still exist.

view more: next ›