u320

Rust async semantics are complex because they need to support resumable computations on a single C-style stack. It has nothing to do with concurrency, which was already supported, but at the cost of multiple stacks (either green threads at one point or OS threads). Futures just happen to be a very prominent example of resumable computations. Generator functions is another.

Some guy posted a common neo-nazi conspiracy theory about Jews. Elon replied in approval. Apparently you did now know this, yet you come here and post that we should not talk about it.

They like how they sound when handled. They have fantastic hearing, so it's not a surprise that it affects how they play.

This is not a big mystery. Cats play for the same reason that dogs and kids do. For some reason cats vary a lot in how they play. But its no mystery why it often involves chasing something that moves. They are genetically evolved to practice hunting, because they are natural hunters.

It's a foundation in Luxembourg, with a Dutch subsidiary that owns some offices in Sweden.

Sure, but 64-bit x86 did materialize and killed Itanium, there is little reason to think it wouldn't have killed those archs too.

HP wasn't just involved, it was their baby from the beginning. But they realized that the investment was too large and risky and Intel needed a 64-bit arch. So they partnered up.

He left Rust long before ? was introduced.

> Just personally, I can count on one hand the number of algorithms I've written where weird control flow was necessary to make the algorithm easier, and they were all weird shit that I expect other people to use libraries for in most cases.

Async/await or error handling is not "weird control flow". In many codebases you would have more functions that use those than not.

No the default action is to do nothing (ie do not install the OS). You have to actively consent or reject.

The RISC-V community seeing an influx of large interests, used to ARM-style architectures might create conflicts. But it is really a sign of RISC-V winning.

EPYC was AMD, Intel's x86 successor was called EPIC.

It doesn't really matter HOW they do it, as long as you get the advantages of float encoding (practically infinite headroom). Of course if you zoom in enough there will be something in there that uses integers, but this would be true for e.g. a floating point adder as well.

No the resulting T would not react immediately. This doesn't happen in existing D-T reactors, why would it happen here where the T/D ratio orders of magnitude lower? Most atoms in a cycle will never fuse.

There will be barely any D-T fusion. Neutrons from D-D is a problem they will have to manage, but they have lower energy than D-T would have.

That's not how grid economics work. Transmission costs are large and rising, but that is more of a problem for intermittent sources.

By making deuterium fuse with itself.

Float can be justified where performance is more important than accuracy. Which does happen sometimes in the financial world.

It's not really symmetric. It's not hard to imagine a situation where everyone stops believing something (a currency) is not worth anything anymore. But why would somebody believe that nothing except currency is not worth anything?

Paxos is a family of algorithms of which Raft is a member. You can change Raft in various ways but then it's not Raft anymore, but it can still be Paxos. So of course Paxos can "do more".

Transformers as toy vehicles that can turn into robots.

They started to pay podcasters to publish on Spotify exclusively. E.g. Joe Rogan.

In theory, we could have had a much better power grid with more transmission. The reasons we don't have nothing to do with the price of aluminium, or the resistive losses of it. It's just difficult to build large-scale infrastructure. Transmission projects typically spend longer in court than actually building them. Superconductors would not change a thing, unless it changed that.

No, switching from raw aluminium to an obscure synthesised compound is not going to be worth it for a few % efficieny gain. We've had centuries of "scale up" with copper and it's still not worth it.

REBCO was a bigger deal for fusion than LK99 would have been. We can't make tokamaks smaller, the magnetic forces would rip them apart.

Why would it be cheaper? The actual rails is a pretty small part of constructing high speed rail, isn't it? Especially on problematic terrain.

Do you have a source for this?

It would make fusion experiments cheaper, but not more successful.

You could put nuclear reactors in the middle of the desert today (ignoring cooling for now). The reasons we don't typically do it has nothing to do with resistance.

Transmission losses aren't really a big problem for the grid. Cost, geopolitics, and resiliency matters more. I don't expect superconductors to change much here.