samdoesnothing

Probably a tie!

Same texture so a single draw call probably?

Yep.

It's hard to find an easier good vs evil distinction than between Google and literally anybody else.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Obviously the experience wouldn't rival one of a 19th century slave and nobody is making that claim. However, forced labor for no compensation is slavery, by definition.

Everything you say about memory safety issues applies to logic bugs too. And likewise in reverse - you can have a memory safety issue that doesn't result in a vulnerability or crash. So I don't buy it that memory safety is so different from other types of bugs that it should be considered a binary issue and not on a spectrum like everything else!

Skepticism of an absolutist binary take on memory safety is not the same as skepticism of memory safety in general and it's important to distinguish the two.

It's like saying that people skeptical of formal verification are actually skeptical of eliminating bugs. Most people are not skeptical of eliminating bugs, but they might be skeptical of extreme approaches to do so.

I think a lot of the absolutists around memory safety are just using it as a bludgeon to evangelize their preferred programming language. Otherwise, the position of "memory safety is the most important thing, but we should ignore other languages that provide stronger guarantees" is absurd.

> Take Herb Sutter for example, who argues that "memory safety" as defined in this article is an extreme goal and we should instead focus on a more achievable 95% safety instead to spend the remaining effort on other types of safety.

I don't really see how that's a) a scepticism of memory safety or b) how it's not seen as a reasonable position. Just because someone doesn't think X is the most important thing ever doesn't mean they are skeptical of it, but rather that the person holding the 100% viewpoint is probably the one with the extreme position.

> Are people actually this daft.

Some are, for others its just another mechanism they can use to push for socialism.

Corporations are not legally humans and nobody who isn't either misinformed or purposely strawmanning considers a corporation to be a human. Legal personhood just means that a corporation can be a legal actor and possess certain rights and responsibilities. Perhaps they should have called it persona ficta as they did 800 years ago, but the concept is useful and is not, like others in this thread have suggested, something that greedy corporations use to legally bludgeon the proletariat with.

Nothing has changed, there are no government services or major companies who require you to interact with them using an app on a major smartphone platform.

They don't need to ditch smartphones, there are more options than just an iPhone/Pixel or dumb phone.

But most people including myself just don't care about side loading. For those who do, there are options like a Fairphone, various Linux phones, etc.

Maybe it's country specific - here in Canada I don't feel like I need a smart phone for anything crucial. There is a trend where people including zoomers such as myself switch to dumb phones for a "digital detox". So it seems perfectly feasible to do so.

...by not purchasing one?

Yeah I don't think you ever could just call MyComponent(props) directly if the component used hooks. If it was hookless (what a concept...) it wouldn't matter.

No...?

No, the problem is the extent to which private parties can use the power of law to legally restrict your usage of property you own. And that's the reason it's a right.

If you don't like the restrictions a product has you can simply not purchase the product, no "right" has been infringed.

I don't think that's true, you can write uncompiled createElement calls and everything still works fine.

It's always seemed obvious to me that it would be better to make C safer than it would be to rewrite the billions of lines of C that run all our digital infrastructure. Of course that will get pushback from people who care more about rewriting it in a specific language, but pragmatically it's the obvious solution. Nice to see stuff like Fil-C proving it's possible, and if the performance gap can get within 10% (which seems very possible) it would be a no-brainer.

> The concept of a school wouldn't be illegal.

Yes it is, you explicitly said it would be illegal if you didn't get permission from the government. What you meant to say was that "The concept of a government-approved school wouldn't be illegal." which is very different from the concept of any school being legal, and also redundant because by definition a government-approved school is a legal school, since governments hold a monopoly on the legal system.

Isn't that contradictory? If a school doesn't meet certain standards presumably it would be illegal?

Thanks, AI.

Corporations are nothing more than a legal fiction around a group of people. Do you think individuals lose certain rights when they form groups?

Have you used other ones? Not a dig, I've primarily used HTML/CSS for UIs and have been playing around with Compose recently and haven't made up my mind what I like more.

I love shipping source maps for my stuff bc it lets other developers take a peek and I love doing that with other peoples sites :)

It far and away beats the alternative which is clicking on a link and nothing happening. Feedback should be within a frame or two of latency, not seconds...

That's what this type of SPA architecture leads to unfortunately. Routers should immediately display the navigated to route with place holder content / skeletons, but instead all the frameworks basically wait for all the data to load before transitioning. You can technically stream the data in but even a single awaited promise will block the navigation until it succeeds. And it's not an issue that shows up in dev because typically the data loading is instant.

I make Javascript mandatory to use my sites regardless of if it's necessary.

I think most capitalists aren't pro or anti acquisition, for the simple fact that they don't believe they have the right to tell two people (or two groups of people) that they aren't allowed to associate with each other.

But if you're more consequentialist, you might take it on a case-by-case basis.