thunderfork

>why did their campaign staffers go out of their way to find an exact named person to put on the ballot

A bold allegation, which, if untrue, renders your question moot

Is there any evidence there's a problem here worth solving (i.e. worth the non-zero costs of a change?)

Signs point to "no".

Ah, I hadn't considered that but that totally makes sense!

Re: mp3, Opus is a pretty big improvement. In my experience I've found that Opus is pretty reliably transparent at 96kbit/s, whereas LAME (which really squeezes mp3 for all it's got) needs ~130kbit/s

I think encode costs are higher (although I'm struggling to find any actual data) but in my experience this is totally negligible in practice.

Of course, don't go converting all your mp3s to Opus, but if you're running a music streaming server or whatever, Opus is pretty sweet... and probably close to "as good as it gets" until/unless we figure out some crazy new tricks.

There's a distinction to be made between lossless (compression) and lossless (bit depth/gamma/yadda yadda); typically the format conversion isn't considered part of the "lossy/lossless" distinction.

Definitely not something to be forgotten if you're expecting to compress lossless RGB, although this is pretty rare outside of niche-ish use cases (afaik game capture is basically the only place where people are likely to be using RGB and not YCbCr? could be wrong!)

What bearing does this anecdote have on the discussion?

Would you take a bullet for your clients and end-users?

Burning yourself out to patch over unsustainable working conditions is a slow bullet.

One of the major problems with the modern internet is that you can't tell people who advocate for "always do the worst thing all the time! you're morally justified because systems are supposed to be resilient!" that they should be killed or kill themselves.

But I know you don't truly believe that the only reasonable response to "someone could murder me" is to hole yourself up in a bunker - it'd be a pretty awful way to live! You just think that everything low-trust that you do is justified, without thinking about what a world that operates by these principles would actually look like.

Today, the border; tomorrow, hand-me-downs to every cop shop in the country

>In 7-10 years the price of memory and compute should drop by 80-90%

The mechanism through which this occurs being..?

Trees, forests, and the things that live in them are also non-fungible. This was also indicated in my previous comment. Hope this helps!

The point is that the damage is not so simple to reverse. There are consequences to destroying and regrowing that would not be felt if the destruction had not occurred.

I don't care about a popularity contest, man. If you don't want to talk about your own reasoning you can just say that. Wasting my time by explaining the concept of the wisdom of crowds is unnecessary.

Friction like "please make a Facebook account to complete your purchase"

I hope you don't think this is a strong response

>yet as a systems language you will need to invoke unsafe rust,

This isn't generally the case.

It's fascinating that you feel that way, but "I feel this is a threat" isn't really explaining why you feel it's a threat, especially when the purpose is to identify passwords whose full cleartext is exposed, which I'd rate as a far more substantial concern

So, wait, these are secrets that are already given to h-a, hashed, and just the first five characters of the hash sent up..?

Yeah, I agree with the maintainer, this strikes me as outrage theater over any actual problem, no?

>Good codebases already do what rust is doing with the borrow checker, it's not rocket science.

Rust allows you to achieve with syntax what these good codebases achieve through diligence. You're right that it isn't rocket science, but it's demonstrably challenging, given that plenty of people get it wrong.

People are certainly trying to bring more safety to existing languages (in various ways), and that's only a good thing.

The moments of player-antagonism are the most interesting parts of Braid/Witness, imo.

Tools can enable diligence, and tools can discourage negligence. There's an all-or-nothing fallacy at work in the suggestion that tools must be perfect at both of these things to be useful in advancing the craft.

A great deal of Rust code need not ever involve the unsafe block, and in these cases there is no great temptation to stray off this path. This is pretty good, imo.

A gun in a glass case with a warning label reading "do not aim at foot"?

"which runtime" is a separate discussion from "which package manager"; there's nothing in Node requiring you to use npm (or to rely on external dependencies at all)

People have been using chatbots to cheat on schoolwork for a few years now

Centralization of what, though? It could centralize operations while (through, eg, democracy) decentralizing power

A lot of replies here seem to be asserting that this "isn't that hard" without addressing the thing that makes it most hard: submodule compatibility and the breadth of tooling

We do this with laws already

Some clients only take H264, depends on what you're delivering to. Often for web media you end up having to serve [h264, h265, av1], which is a real pain

If you're not doing anything that matters, 2FA is easy. If you're doing something people actually care about, you're going to have to answer real world questions like "how do we provide support for this", "do we force certain roles to set up 2fa", "what if someone loses their phone", etc

>How could it be otherwise?

I feel like acting like things are impossible which are done in other regions without issue is a losing argument, no?