cjg

General Relativity has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor which is the term that generates the gravitational field. It includes the energy of photons.

Here's a simple model:

A market of one token that was initially worth nothing 1 year ago but the market now sees has value - let's say $100 - because it has some genuine utility - various companies have said they will accept it as payment for a variety of different products.

If you add all the cashflows for trading on this token over the year, $100 has been made. In fact the only way for these cashflows to sum to zero is for the token to be worth zero.

Where did that value come from? It came from the increased utility of the token.

Is it zero sum though? Finance in general isn't - it allows people to invest and manage risk.

If I bought a bitcoin at $100 and sold it at $1,000 - who lost money trading with me? The person I bought it from because they could have kept it and made the money I made? No - they were happy to realise their own returns. The person I sold it to? Assuming they still have it, they hold something valued substantially above $1,000 and are quite happy.

The only way for this to be zero sum is if bitcoin has zero value. But bitcoin has at least some utility so now the market is just arguing over how much - and that value changes as bitcoin becomes more accepted / useful.

Pay them a million each and it still works out cheaper.

Evolution is just variation and selection. That might be the biological evolution we are familiar with, but it might also be improvements that a carpenter makes to their toolbox over time.

Here (the toolbox and this paper) the variation is directed rather than random, but it's still variation and selection.

Perhaps consciousness not computation directly, but something that computation is good at - thus leading us to get confused between the two. I'm thinking of information processing.

This then shows the weakness in the hot iron argument. The information is now encoded in the choice of observer not the iron bar - which is essentially random. Lean on information theory for deeper insights.

Yes - at height, they tend to move forwards rather than hovering in one spot to avoid getting stuck in a column of downwards moving air: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring_state

I don't know about other parts of the world, but in the UK, helicopters are quite carefully controlled so that they can land safely in such an event.

For example, to fly a helicopter over London requires pilots to fly only over well defined routes - although those with multiple engines are allowed more scope.

That was easily my commute when I was working in London. I'd drive to the train station, take the train into London, then the tube within London and walk the last 10 minutes to the office. On a normal day it would take 1h40 each way. On a bad day it could be much longer.

That's nearly 17 hours over a 5 day week assuming no problems.

I had a UK judge say exactly the opposite in court - you don't get to claim your time - that's just the joy of litigation.

Google know a lot about a logged in user - especially ones that have had an account for a long time. They could lean on that.

Think vgel's answer to you was helpful.

There are other techniques too, such as https://docs.rs/crossbeam-epoch/latest/crossbeam_epoch/

You can also use Rc/RefCell rather than Arc/Mutex if you don't need a multi-thread capable structure. You can always wrap a Mutex round the tree as a whole instead.

I feel confident that my Rust is strong enough that I can already write any structure that is expressible in another language.

It might be that I would have to add extra safety mechanisms - such as Arcs or Mutexes. But it's all possible.

Some Rust developers might see such code as less idiomatic and look for a different solution, but if a different solution doesn't exist, there's always the fallback.

Less experienced Rust developers, however, are more used to seeing only the easier patterns and may not appreciate how to achieve some of the more difficult ones.

It's not that these patterns are harder in Rust than another language, per se. But more typing is needed to convince the compiler that you have everything lined up. Other languages will just let you introduce data races / crashes.

The scientists did an experiment and showed that their theory about very tiny bits of stuff is what had been predicted by a theory we came up with about 50 years ago.

At a higher level than 5, they have experimental evidence for an aspect of QCD, which deals with the internal structure of protons and neutrons, which had previously been untested. Their results also show that the charm quark has some mass.

Reminds me of the 1991 Archimedes game Cataclysm.

Seems like a site that I would like to use, but it didn't solve my problems.

I wanted to be able to only see companies that were willing to hire people that live in the country that I live in.

Searching by tech was potentially useful, but didn't really work. I had a large list of companies returned, a sample of which said they used that technology, but didn't have any jobs using it. It needs to be a filter on jobs not on the company - and also a critical technology on that job.

Filtering by benefit seemed a bit pointless. Why would one particular benefit be make or break? What if another company was paying twice as much, but didn't have that benefit - would it still be interesting?

yeet e would be equivalent to return Err(e)

Often significantly more indented.

According to PyPL's numbers, Rust's growth in popularity has been pretty much exponential since 1.0 with a doubling every ~15 months.

It was in another comment: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9714188

A small performance improvement for avoiding GC isn't the reason I use Rust.

For me, it's about (amongst other things):

* correctness: e.g. no null pointers / segfaults, no data races, strong enums, error handling

* docs: e.g. detailed API docs and amazing error messages

* community: e.g. great interactions on GitHub issues

OK - well I gave it a try.

I want to see the cost of the gift on the image - even if it's not guaranteed to be exactly correct when I click through. I just need to know this item is $20, $200 or $2000. For me this is critical.

The one thing that caught my eye as a possible gift was out of stock when I clicked through. It would be better to avoid showing it in the first place - although I appreciate that's not an easy problem to solve.

I might actually use this app. Nice.

I really like this idea but I'm put off by having to enter lots of other people's personal information - particularly dates of birth - but also their interests.

Limiting the date of birth to the year of birth might help - although I guess you want to be able to remind me when it's their birthday. Perhaps just don't remind me about that - I don't need that.

Don't know if you can do this already, but being able to set a budget would be good.

Rust has some GCC support.

Personally, I would just use the first option, unless I had a specific reason otherwise.

There's a general life lesson here: ease up and enjoy it.

I would argue that it is not harmless.

Let's say that you have a P2P application for sharing MP3s. There are many millions of MP3s, but if an attacker sees a download of a particular size, then they have a pretty good idea of which MP3 has been downloaded.