Or Next Tuesdayism: the universe will be created next Tuesday. Your current sense of experiencing reality is merely the fabricated memory which will have existed after the universe gets created.
There's a disconnect between TDD using all sorts of tests (unit, integration, hardware-in-the-loop, in-field, etc.) and TDD using unit tests only. Unit tests provide the least value/line of test code of all types of tests. They're important, since they can catch bugs earlier than other sorts of tests that can't be caught by a type system, but not sufficient to catch most bugs.
John Grimsmo's knifemaking business has a Kern which is perfectly capable of doing the tolerances needed behind the apex. That's a very expensive CNC machine, but it's capable of precision & accuracy well beyond what's possible to achieve by hand.
3-5, usually. Tuesday is used as a placeholder for "generic day like any other". Monday & Friday might be special, or they might not. But Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday are generic & interchangeable: you're not catching up after a weekend, and there's a work day the next day so there will be time to catch issues. They're Tuesdays in spirit, if not in fact.
> Obviously that precludes any and all automated systems.
What if it's not an automated system? The automated system merely takes pictures of your license plate & face, then some human decides whether those pictures are evidence you broke the law. They go to court, since they're your accuser.
You can write a C compiler with exactly laid out well-defined semantics. You can't assume those semantics hold for C-the-language, because it doesn't define those semantics. UB is a property of the language, not just of a given compiler. The Rust reference defines the semantics of the safe subset of Rust without any UB, so any compliant Rust compiler won't have UB in that subset. The reference also defines the guarantees which the programmer must uphold within `unsafe` blocks to avoid UB, as long as those are upheld there's no UB at all.
The semantics are well-defined in both modes. You can predict exactly what will happen in either case. In C, the semantics are not defined at all, you can't predict what will happen and it's allowed to change between compilations of the same source.
It will probably get omitted, since Undefined Behavior isn't allowed by the C abstract machine, but sadly compilers are allowed to emit code for UB in the source (partly because some UB is only detectable at runtime). Sometimes disabling optimizations will incorrectly allow codegen to run for source lines which have UB, tricking people into thinking that optimizations are breaking their program. Compilers are allowed to do this, since behaviors other than "omit the offending statement" are unfortunately allowed by the standard, so it's not a compiler bug.
It's indistinguishable from unspecified behavior, not from undefined behavior. Unspecified behavior has to pick from a finite list of allowed behaviors. Undefined behavior can do anything.
A core idea of the conservative state is that there are some chosen people, whether due to their might, wealth, ethnicity, a "god", or something similar, and that the state should protect & serve the chosen people. Those who are not the chosen are bad, and should be exploited to serve the chosen.
An attack that could remotely ring my old-fashioned hard-wired doorbell would be really cool to read about. It's the classic electromechanical style with an AC line transformer wired directly between the chime & the button.
To a conservative, yep! Conservative morality is inherently relativist, those who do not share their world view deserve punishment, and our suffering makes the world better.
The core problem is a difference in values. You value your own health over causing people you dislike to suffer. They value causing people they dislike to suffer over their own health. Which choice is "better" is subjective. I'd say that deliberately increasing the suffering of others is bad, especially if it increases the total amount of suffering in the world, but that too is a subjective value judgement.
I liked the classes I had with a "reverse" format: the "homework" was done in-class, checked for correctness but not part of the grade, and the lecture was a recording watched at home.
IME having a "rubber duck" for debugging & planning can be helpful. Having it talk back is a significant boost. Having it write the code isn't. AI is nice at helping me explain the problem I'm trying to solve to myself. It's much harder to write clear, unambiguous, succinct English than any programming language, but being forced to do so to explain something to an AI helps clarify my own thoughts. The AI's output isn't nearly as relevant, though it can be helpful since it can run its own searches across the code & invalidate my assumptions sometimes.
An extra tier of standard library which can make breaking changes, perhaps. Rust's stability guarantee for std means cryptography really shouldn't go in there, since sometimes algorithms & protocols get broken (DES, MD5, SHA1, etc.) and need to be removable. Without breaking changes you get stuck with security vulnerabilities, if not from cryptography then from other poorly-designed APIs.
> I'm just not sure how this gives me control of my information, whether I want it sent or not to Google, and if they're retaining it for training or not.
That's not the goal. Turning your information into their information is the goal. If training an LLM on some data isn't copyright infringement but instead makes it a brand new non-derivative work, then training an LLM on your personal information arguably means it's no longer your personal information, but instead a legally distinct work.
Batteries & solar (with sunlight) can black start if they have grid-forming inverters. Grid-following inverters are cheaper, but there's nothing physical or engineering-based that prevents using grid-forming inverters on enough renewable sources to black start when needed, just the economics of cheaper installations.
The head of the Department of Health is solidly opposed to the development of vaccines. And the COVID mRNA vaccine increases carditis risk less than getting COVID without having had the vaccine does, and decreases the risk of severe carditis if you get COVID after the vaccine. So that's not a great argument against it.
Those were Trump's proposed solutions to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Their post is quite clear: the US has an utterly incompetent administration which is actively opposed to the best known method for preventing the spread of deadly viruses: vaccines. Funding for monitoring the spread of diseases has also been cut. The World Cup is a large event which will bring people from all over the world into the US and into close contact for multiple days, right as a new dangerous virus with a long incubation period has been detected spreading from person to person.
Also, I just checked, and LinkedIn's privacy policy page doesn't contain any information about who viewed my profile in the last year. No usernames, no company names, it's just a generic privacy policy. So the data isn't there either.