monocasa
Way more testable, the bulk can be shared between async and blocking IO, it's a lot easier to completely ban unsafe in your dependencies (excepting std and core), etc.
Six hardware threads, so the thread per subsystem model didn't really work. Instead you got the best results from a DAG of tasks submitted to a job stealing scheduler running on most of the CPU resources. But beside that, no little DSPs that you had to separate work out onto other than the GPU.
And it had the first consumer GPU to incorporate unified shaders (so vertex and pixel shaders ran on the same cores, dynamically scheduled to improve utilization).
At this point my fictional money is on there's a new election in a few months, it doesn't have the same influx of diaspora helping the opposition since they already just spent thousands flying in and back, and Netanyahu wins again.
This was always going to be a bunch of politiking at this point to get some party to switch sides by giving them a ministership that the size of their party wouldn't normally justify.
Also, Chan14 is really silly to say 60 MKs, given that you need 61 and it's so far out from everyone else's data. It's as big of a number as they can say without having too much egg on their face later.
I bet there's either something the poster isn't telling us, or CBP made a bad call.
It was heartbreaking.
That feels like the ~2010 era of people saying that functions should be as small as possible. That lead me to reviewing a lot of code where every function was one or two lines and you couldn't actually see what was going on anymore through the layers of unneeded abstraction.
I want to give chrome the benefit of the doubt, but that seems really goofy.
I would think they're probably even more meaningful in an agentic world.
Shitty generals can't review meaningfully review the work of their troops.
On top of that all, I just enjoy programming itself. It's less and less of the meat of a software job over time, but I was coding before I got paid for it, and I'll probably keep coding well after I can get paid for it.
On top of all of that, the neural network for FaceID currently runs in the secure enclave, and directly controls the fingerprint reader hardware, so it wasn't exactly a leap to think they moved the hardware pathway for the camera there too. My admonishment for doing too much in the secure enclave exists for the current state of the world.
I always took those to mean "we're sure a bunch of you are already using the keyword we wanted to use as typedef in your codebase, so here's something that's in the standard's namespace, and you can typedef it to something sane for your codebase".
Sure, but that's the case for a lot of languages. ANSI X3.159-1989 (aka C89) shows that just about everyone involved was a representative for some big org, almost all commercial or military.
But if the foundation seems like it's mismanaging Rust, the community should feel free to fork it. The trademark isn't super important at the end of the day, it's the community. And the community is very well represented in the Rust Foundation by design AFAICT.
> There is a certain “social momentum” when it comes to the spread of Rust...
People like it, and it excites/inspires them to use it. And it's more than just memory safety. I commonly use it in deeply embedded cases where I'm doing silly stuff like 'unsafe fn main()'. The memory safety isn't the main draw for me. It's mostly the algebraic types, and the abstraction mechanism that's less interested in hiding data/code relationships than c++ is. The borrow checker is just a cherry on top.
That being said, I wouldn't confuse people's excitement for requirements on others. New code should have to make a case for itself on its own merits.
> One of the Rust community’s main passtimes, a meme at this point, is rewriting existing projects into Rust....
I would strongly encourage more rewriting projects.
What I would discourage is them being widely deployed. I do think Canonical jumped the gun a bit on their Rust adoption with sudo-rs and uutils.
> I believe this culture of rewriting existing projects benefits corporations (again).
This is hardly a Rust thing, and I think more on the ebb and flow of the era with new coders not understanding the purpose of the GPL and thinking that MIT/BSD licenses must mean more free rather than the rather nuanced discussions that can be in favor of either. We are starting to see push back on this though thankfully.
I am curious what the state of this looks like in a couple years given the recent bout of borderline forcible open source rewrites via coding agents.
> It’s completely possible that Rust’s compiler contains a backdoor.
This is practically a non issue; there are people who bootstrap Rust from source.
I would also throw out there that we'll probably see agents sifting through binaries before too long. They'll just be looking for exploitable bugs like the current explosion in LLM found security issues.
I would like to see other compilers though.
For those following along, the Secure Enclave is a separate core that runs most of the security stuff (including hardware like the fingerprint scanner), and Secure Exclaves are essentially virtual machines on the main AP cores used as a security boundary for specific tasks, kind of like Qubes does.
The point of a secure enclave is to reduce the attack surface to something you can actually reason about the entire thing.
Sticking more and more in there is asking to defeat the whole purpose.
At a bare minimum, you would almost have to have source to the vast majority of the kernel because there was no kernel modules. Sysgenning for a particular system involved compiling the kernel for that set of hardware.
I'm literally working on an early sun system emulator right now, heavily assisted by the standard sec tape that came with the standard software distribution of sunos, which has plenty of AT&T code.
That is not the case. It hasn't been truly tested, and there are very strong hints in SCOTUS's previous opinions that scale dramatically changes the equation for them.
Of course SCOTUS is currently much more amenable to the idea of changing their mind, so who knows how it'd actually hit, but it's far from decided law in the US.
For one example, Sotomayer's concurrence in US v. Jones (2012)
> Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may “alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.” United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F. 3d 272, 285 (CA7 2011) (Flaum, J., concurring).
> I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements. I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on. I do not regard as dispositive the fact that the Government might obtain the fruits of GPS monitoring through lawful conventional surveillance techniques. See Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 35, n. 2; ante, at 11 (leaving open the possibility that duplicating traditional surveillance “through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy”). I would also consider the appropriateness of entrusting to the Executive, in the absence of any oversight from a coordinate branch, a tool so amenable to misuse, especially in light of the Fourth Amendment’s goal to curb arbitrary exercises of police power to and prevent “a too permeating police surveillance,” United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 595 (1948).*
And you would have had to break this law in a territory that also was a signatory of the Rome statute. This isn't some out of jurisdiction or ex post facto form of law.
So for instance, US military personnel couldn't be arrested up for crimes that occured in Iraq, because Iraq is not a signatory of the Rome statute.
So your example doesn't make sense unless you ate meat somewhere else that it was also explicitly banned, and then went to another country that had the same cross agreement to arrest people in the combined territories.