hurril

I've been seriously at it with Rust for about six months now and really loving it. What do you mean by "use an arena for the AST?" What is an arena in this context?

This would be so much better than our current capitalist system!

The vacuum is outside the meat, though, so if anything it's bound to suck whatever is in the meat out of it.

Oh man, good times. Those diskettes <3

This is the first thing to get, the second is that Monty won't pick the car. If you do not understand these two, then you will say 1/2.

I've heard the analogy with 1 000 doors and opening 998 of them before but that doesn't explain anything at all. If you think that makes you understand then you're mistaken; that made you understand something else.

The key is that you have 1/3 of being right, 2/3 of being wrong. So in 2/3 of the cases, you will be offered to pick the car. So 2/3 switching gives you the car and 1/3 loses you the car. So always switch, it has better odds.

And also by buying electricity from Sweden, which causes my bills to explode. (Because we've also shuttered half of our nuclear facilities.) So when Germany buys enough, we start our oil powerplants to cover :)

I'm 45 and my tolerance for shit is virtually non-existent so I can only imagine what 49 implies :)

I can see a scenario where you do accept the golden handcuffs during a critical period of your life. Of course provided that it really is a very high salary. I.e.: simply doing it for the money for a couple of years to move the personal finances along.

Plus: you really shouldn't accept to be paid off like that. Take the other offer and move on, otherwise they have you by the proverbials...

I'm saying that the productivity gain would have to be incredibly large since it has to encompass a doubled output of features and bug fixes for a net zero change.

Say you have product A with features P, Q, R, and S; writing product B has to reproduce P, Q, R, and S, plus X and Y that is currently produced by the A team. On top of that, it has to fix (conceptual) bugs within P, Q, R, and S. All this is to be done by the new, crack, team that aims to make it so that: cost-of-development(B) < cost-of-development(A).

But the point is that the difference in magnitude of cost-of-development(B) and cost-of-development(A) has to be rather large considering the amount of work needed to have a return on that investment at all.

The big problem there is that the people you are letting loose on the alternative, are lost from the original, so O loses steam that A gains. You still have to produce bug fixes and features to _both_ O and A to keep them in sync. So you essentially have a doubled required production rate to be delivered using the same staff.

So in order for there to be a net gain, the gang working on the alternative have to be able to find such big wins as to being neigh impossible.

This is a very very hard problem in our domain. 99% of the time, we have to simply resist the urge to _just rewrite the sucker_. No! Don't do it! (And this is incredibly hard because we all want to.)

And also: retries needed until last bug is fixed.

You is plural.

Social media is weird when it comes to taxation. Are you for taxes or not? Is it the poor that are buying these un-taxed pools?

Who's going to tell him that comptime functions is what macros are?

Sure, variable costs matter less with less use. I guess the difference in fuel efficiency is not that great, then.

A lower insurance (which is my guess/ opinion!) and a lower lease cost has a greater explanation value.

I understand the argument you're making but I don't see how it makes sense. If fuel is the biggest cost, which it is last time I checked, then fuel efficiency becomes something that affects the financial margins. So it has to be something else.

My guess would be insurance. It costs a lot more to insure passenger flights, which means that the tolerance for failures is that much lower. I.e.: it costs a lot more to insure an old piece of junk than a brand new piece of kit.

Cool off period? I am calm as a jug of yoghurt my dear Internet friend :)

It seems to me that it would be educational for you to read a little about how trademarks work. The stuff that you direct at me has thorough explanations; these are not my opinions. To be honest: I'm not even 100% sure I even want the current trademark system, but I do understand the arguments for it.

This is true but it is also a distinction without meaningful difference. Transferring money from your account in Bank A to one i Bank B poses the same "problem." It's not Bank A bux to Bank B bux, it's $currency. But what actually happened is that an "excel sheet" in Bank A went from +$XXX,XX to +$(XXX,XX - 500) and the other's $(YYY,YY + 500); part of one bank's liability (their debt to you) was transferred onto another bank. Now Bank B owes you (at least) USD $500. Whether or not they see fit to make you whole that amount is akin to whether or not PayPal would.

Kicker: if it can't or doesn't want to pay you, that's a you problem.

And... then? You would essentially need a homomorphic hash function for that to work.

I.e.: [ a, b, c ].map(hash) produces the same order.

where hash: A -> B, where p, q in A. p < q => x, y in B. x < y.

> It's the Rust foundation that considers it's users dumb and little, unable to think for themselves and determine which resources are worth using. How could you in good faith read what I said and come away thinking I support controlling the availability of resources named rust?

Those are your words and I think you should own them.

The trademark process is there to prevent malicious entities from doing that. And in an environment where some brand has a certain value, there will be people that would want to infringe on it to have a share of the proceeds. Why else are we even having this conversation, if it wasn't for the fact that people _do_ want to infringe on the brand?

I went with the Go example to make the difference bigger. We can talk about the Crabs Language instead; imagine they take that language in another direction. (I don't mind that at all, doing so probably adds to the community of knowledge and information so I'm all for it.) But now let's also call them Rust.

What does learnrust.com mean, then? Which Rust? A new users or a company looking to hire resources in this arena, would you call them dumb and little for not being able to expertly tease out the differences?

Are you asking me to defend Disney's actions because I side with Rust at this point?

I think that it is fair that someone defends their name and brand and I definitely wish that you be permitted to do so, so that someone is unable to be too untoward to your business.

They are trademarks, though, are they not?

Should I be permitted to fork Go an call it Rust? learnrust.com with fine resources to learn ru.. I mean go, no wait. Rust. Definitely rust.

I am a user of Rust and I am neither dumb nor little, but thank you for your kind consideration of my mental abilities. But I think you are the one missing the point here: it has to do with the stability of the brand, language and environment; I've invested a lot of hours into this and will continue to do so. Without the protection I would not because it could be gone tomorrow, basically.

Do you think they would care if you started a company named Oracle?

No, what is happening is a storm in a glass of water. _This_ is what is hurting the language and the environment.

You have to protect trademarks or you lose them.

Having a late change to a conference is definitely bad and sad but there is simply no need for that to imply a rage quit and all this drama. That is a non-sequiteur. Suck it up, make the talk on youtube (or somewhere else); I'm sure there are lots of people that wish to see it; I know I would.

Enough drama!

If someone resigns over this, then I would say that the right people are resigning. Very sad to see competence go but rage quit over this? Come on.

Come back tomorrow. Nothing has happened. Please!

The examples all look like something I can do today in any modern functional language. What if I told you that you do not have to stick with Java or C#?

While there seems to be a difference in how they perceived what the stated problem actually was (where Knuth interpreted it as a call for a pedagogically laid out solution and McIlroy seemingly didn't?) I disagree with your conclusion here.

They chose different languages to express themselves in or with. Bash and WEB, respectively. Given other and perhaps even changing requirements, who knows what they'd have done? Why would McIlroy have had to resort to implementing (parts of) his solution in C and not, say, AWK or just in terms of more and other Bash constructs?

The conciseness, perhaps even terseness, to McIlroys expression is very elegant and despite the fact that I could not repeat that, I'd still call him a winner in a number of different hypothetical competitions drawn from this context of interactions.

And I'm in love with Donald Knuth!

I agree with this sentiment but this isn't Netflix' fault (nor is it any of the other service providers'.)

But then this still comes down to a sense of entitlement: I should be able to have access to anything and even though this has value to me, I shouldn't have to pay too much for it.

I do feel this myself as well, however. Definitely not above that. But let's be real here, still.

I can't be arsed with the piracy bullshit any more.

The reason that I've not canceled Netflix even though only using it pretty rarely, is that it's still very cheap and I have the "biggest" option. 179 SEK a month in Sweden which is about $17. This is about a third more than _one_ lunch in the city will set you back. Are we really crying over this amount?