Nope. Not at all.
Afaict, Rust memcopys moved objects if they're larger than some size when passed as function arguments. Also take into account implicit copies such as those left laying around when a vector outgrows it's heap segment.
575 karma · joined February 23, 2018
Afaict, Rust memcopys moved objects if they're larger than some size when passed as function arguments. Also take into account implicit copies such as those left laying around when a vector outgrows it's heap segment.
.. in your country. Saying something is illegal without mentioning jurisdiction is meaningless.
> not allowed by ToS
The service being signed up to, perhaps. But it isn't clear to me that it's banned by gmail's tos especially since he's using the service APIs normally.
Also, how do you deal with spam filters that are designed to spam anything without a local part? Or is this only done to "well-known" domains like gmail.com?
Same reason why many people refuse to visit nude beaches despite others not seeing any issue in said these beaches: personal values and principles.
Because it is. Who will be responsible for the suffrage that gene-edited people will inevitably go through when someone screws up (and make no mistake, someone WILL screw up). Who will pay their medical bills?
That's only addressing one small issue from an unfathomable pile of issues and unintended consequences.
I for one am glad those "luddites" have more say in issues like this than people like you.
We don't disagree here. This is the reason why rendering support for non-Latin scripts is usually abysmal on most software like op. It's why authors need help and usually won't do it themself.
> Thus, it's a major architectural decision to support complex scripts at all, and to figure out how to do it.
That's all the more reason to contribute to the project.
> It's not useful advice.
Perhaps it isn't very practical, but someone has to do it. It's also better than the alternative of just complaining without contributing towards a useful result.
I've worked on text rendering in the past, and the amount of subtleties in how each language is rendered and the exceptions/code paths that must be implemented to properly support said languages is not insignificant. Mind you, I say this as a native speaker of these languages. I don't want to imagine the amount of effort and work that would be required to support a language I don't speak. Doubly so if I'm not being payed for it.
If you need support for a language you speak, help the developer by implementing and contributing the support yourself.
PS: This isn't aimed at you specifically, but to those who criticize projects for lack of language support without understanding the effort required.
Name and shame. List the EU companies that are shitting on user privacy the way Google, Twitter, and Facebook currently are.
The URL template for normal rust installers is:
* https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/rust-1.32.0-{TARGET-TRIPPLE}.{EXT}
* https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/rust-1.32.0-{TARGET-TRIPPLE}.{EXT}.asc
* https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/rust-std-1.32.0-{TARGET-TRIPPLE}.{EXT}
* https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/rust-std-1.32.0-{TARGET-TRIPPLE}.{EXT}.asc
The file extension for auxiliary target installers is `.tar.gz` (or `.tar.xz`) for all targets including Windows.
Note: Due to a known bug, browsing the complete list of all installers is not available on https://static.rust-lang.org. It is however still possible to access dated repositories via the following URL template:
https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/YYYY-MM-DD/
Installers for the current stable release of rust can be browsed at https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/2019-01-17/
Cheers!
For the same reason nginx usually runs as a separate user: people make mistakes and security vulnerabilities happen. Security in depth is a good thing.
I agree with GP: I find the two separate copy-paste methods very useful and wouldn't want to see them merged. Users who aren't aware of one of the aren't affected, and those who are get an extra buffer to use.
* Unfortunately, they aren't alone in their sloppy handling of security issues. Rust is also another project that is known to not file CVEs for serious bugs if they occur in previous releases.
$1000 is a tough sell. I bet if they somehow manage to lower it down to around 200, they'll take off regardless of how "dorky" they look.
That conclusion doesn't follow. How does the client loosing your key cause you to consider matrix itself as less secure?
If someone is silly enough to let this be a factor when adopting a new technology, then I'd say that person has more important things to worry about than some encrypted messenger. Fortunately for Tox, the amount of people like this seems very small.
How can you claim that? Looking at most tech we have today, it becomes readily apparent that most technology needs multiple iterations before achieving wide adoption. Web of trust is no exception.
The lack of a widely-adopted precedent implying that some tech is forever poor is a sloppy conclusion to make.
Perhaps I'll just use AppImages like you so that I can finally upgrade off 16.04. Have you found any downsides to using the AppImaged version over the apt one? (aside from the stability issues in newer releases)
I had given up on buying new devices because of how restrictive and abusive phone manufacturers have become towards their customers. If adb can really do what you say it can, maybe I can finally upgrade my phone after all these years. Can you recommend an online article that goes over using `adb` like this? (especially for disabling locked apps)
Why?
I, like gp, prefer consistency and predictability over unique tool-specific defaults. If every command line tool had it's own special quirks, I would need to consult man pages every single time I issue something more complex that a `cd`.
Perhaps lsix should be separated into two tools like find and locate; one that uses cached rendered previews and the other generates them on the fly.
And a whole ton of folks do (see blender's userbase growth). Anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal.
Unless you support your assertions with some sort of objective measure, your assertions are subjective by definition, and will remain so regardless of how many time you insist on it being otherwise.
> As much as I support FOSS, I'd pay for 3DS Max or Maya in half a second, because even as convoluted as their UI/UX is - at least they actually seem to understand there's a human being who is using it at the end of the day.
Funny you say that, because Blender's user interface is also designed for humans :o)
I'm curious, what specifically about blender's interface irritates you so much? Perhaps there might be something to merit such passionate hate.
Almost every single paragraph you wrote stems from your personal opinion. Not a single claim you made was substantiated by any sort of supporting data. Have you even preformed studies beyond "I don't like it and saw some students dislike it"? Have you studied how proficient users use it? As it stands, your comment is a long winded complaint that blender's interface design doesn't conform to your personal tastes.
I, like GP, think Blender's interface is excellent given what it enables. The interface is consistently designed and well thought-out (mostly). The vast functionality of what blender can do is never one or two keystrokes away thanks to pan focus. Information is also grouped consistently and laid out clearly and logically. Pans allow you to easily arrange and rearrange your workspace according to the task at hand. Even menus and controls are (or can be) laid out clearly instead of being hidden deep somewhere because authors thought they wouldn't be used frequently. The interface was designed for serious long term users. It was not designed for casual or one-off users.
I just hope you are also as eager to teach your students about interface design requirements inherent to heavily-used complex software as you are to share your objective opinions.