I don't get the Rust hatred. C has implicitly had an "unsafe" mode for much longer than Rust.

If you're a C kernel developer, you can jump on the Rust bandwagon very easily: just put the keyword unsafe in your comments and you can write code just like Rust developers.

Maybe, just maybe, this mistake was caused by the fact that the same sort of people who are likely to write bugs into their code are the same types of people who prefer "safe" languages because understanding the subtle nuances of how computers work is difficult. They would prefer a system where they couldn't make mistakes, rather than a system where they had to understand the code and the machine to a high level. There's a place in the world for these sorts of people, but it's not in OS/kernel development. The sort of I-can't-make-mistakes-with-Rust mindset probably lulled the coder into a false sense of security, with the predictable outcome.

Not by a long shot. Unsafe is scoped. 20% of Rust packages may use unsafe, but the amount of code in unsafe sections is far far far lower. Unsafe means "I accept the risk of doing unsafe things" but because it's scoped, just because a package uses Unsafe, it's still benefiting from the memory safety of bounds checking and borrow checking 99% of the time.

That's a far far cry from "it's just the same thing as doing it in C"

Wait until they claim that they are using AI to take the screenshots and that state regulation of AI was banned by the King's Executive Order.

From what I know digital signage displays are a lot more than consumer TVs. They will last forever, but the down side is they are not great to watch content with lots of motion.

Usually with our money... Right and Left = Divide and conquer. No option options. I stopped trusting any of them decades ago. ;-)

That's the entire goal of flooding the zone with shit. Trusting nobody is not the smart position I suspect you consider it to be.

ya basic, son

It was probably minimally profitable even with the Xbox 360 hardware issues. Still Xbox was a small part of MS so there was not a lot of profit pressure on them. Then MS started acquiring major developers. Activision Blizzard was a $69B purchase alone. Now MS has more profit expectations of Xbox.

Except many actions of MS says otherwise. For example, MS and Asus just released their new gaming handheld Asus ROG Xbox Ally X. It does not play Xbox games. It plays PC games. MS has been telling the consumer that ”Everything is an Xbox" from smart phones to PCs.

This is the sound of the other shoe dropping.

We all know real programmers use butterflies.

It's long past time we had a real debate about the law, too. Just because something has been the law for a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean it should remain the law as times change. Clearly there is a difference between the implications of casually observing someone as you pass them in a public street, when you probably forget them again a moment later, and the implications of recording someone with a device that will upload the footage to a system run by a global corporation where it can be permanently stored, shared with other parties, analysed including through image and voice recognition that can potentially identify anyone in the footage, where they were, what they were doing, who they were doing it with, and maybe what they were saying and what they had with them, and then combined with other data sources using any or all of those criteria as search keys in order to build a database at the scale of the entire global population over their entire lifetimes to be used by parties unknown for purposes unknown, all without the consent or maybe even the knowledge of the observed people who might be affected as a result.

I don't claim to know a good answer to the question of what we should allow. Privacy is a serious and deep moral issue with far-reaching implications and it needs more than some random guy on Slashdot posting a comment to explore it properly. But I don't think the answer is to say anything goes anywhere in public either just because it's what the law currently says (laws should evolve to follow moral standards, not the other way around) or because someone likes being able to do that to other people and claims their freedoms would be infringed if they couldn't record whatever they wanted and then do whatever they wanted with the footage. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others, which some might feel should include more of a right to privacy than the law in some places currently protects.

That all said, people who think it's cool to film other human beings in clear distress or possibly even at the end of their lives just for kicks deserve to spend a long time in a special circle of hell. Losing a friend or family member who was, for example, killed in a car crash is bad enough. Having to relive their final moments over and over because people keep "helpfully" posting the footage they recorded as they drove past is worse. If you're not going to help, just be on your way and let those who are trying to protect a victim or treat a patient get on with it.

Didn't all of these problems come up with Google Glass over ten years ago? In fact the term "Google Glasshole" was coined for people using Google Glass to record people who didn't want to be recorded. While it is legal to film in public, they did not seem to understand why people did not like it. This user seems to fit that mold.

No but they were experimenting with germanium. My understanding is that researched stopped because while they could get better results with germanium, the problem was how to use it germanium practically as it is 1.6ppm in the Earth's crust while silicon is 282,000 ppm.

That's like the situation where one of my neighbor's dogs pooped on my lawn. Which neighbor was it? Was it the one that I see conscientiously pick up their dog's poop every time on their walks. Or the neighbor that lets their dog roam around the neighborhood with no leash? Your argument would be the conscientious one did it to frame the other neighbor. Because . . .sympathy and support? I do not believe Europe needs any more justification for sympathy and support for Ukraine.

Consider Russia indiscriminately attacks civilian targets, I would bet Russia hitting it by accident or on purpose. It is hard to know at this point.

No what that means is higher production costs do not necessarily map 1:1 to higher price in the end product in every instance. Sometimes the cost is eaten by the manufacturer in terms of profit. Sometimes the manufacturer can change the product to offset the increased cost. For example, cheaper materials, cheaper labor, etc. Now I am not saying they are good changes but that would be one way higher production cost is not passed onto the consumer directly in terms of price.