SpaceX doesn't exist without NASA. And without SpaceX NASA would be still stuck in the 90s. It is a mutually beneficial relationship and clearly benefits the US.
Note that that is a doubly linked list, because it is a "soup of ownership" data structure. A singly linked list has clear ownership so it can be modelled in safe Rust.
On modern aschitectures you shouldn't use either unless you have an extremely niche use-case. They are not general use data structures anymore in a world where cache locality is a thing.
No you don’t. You can use the standard linked list that is already included in the standard library.
Coming up with these niche examples of things you need unsafe for in order to discredit rust’s safety guarantees is just not interesting. What fraction of programmer time is spent writing custom linked lists? Surely way less than 1%. In most of the other 99%, Rust is very helpful.
I think the point is that it's funny that the standard library has to use unsafe to implement a data structure that's like the second data structure you learn in an intro to CS class
C has to make a syscall to the kernel which ultimately results in a BIOS interrupt to implement printf, which you need for the hello world program on page 1 of K&R.
Does that mean that C has no abstraction advantage over directly coding interrupts with asm? Of course not.
> C has to make a syscall to the kernel which ultimately results in a BIOS interrupt to implement printf,
That's not the case since the late 1990s. Other than during early boot, nobody calls into the BIOS to output text, and even then "BIOS interrupt" is not something normally used anymore (EFI uses direct function calls through a function table instead of going through software interrupts).
What really happens in the kernel nowadays is direct memory access and direct manipulation of I/O ports and memory mapped registers. That is, all modern operating systems directly manipulate the hardware for text and graphics output, instead of going through the BIOS.
I love how the most common negative thing I hear about rust is how a really uncommon data structure no one should write by hand and should almost always import can be written using the unsafe rust language feature. Meanwhile rust application s tend to in most cases be considerably faster, more correct and more enjoyable to maintain than other languages. Must be a really awesome technology.
This is far less of a problem than it would be in a C-like language, though.
You can implement that linked list just once, audit the unsafe parts extensively, provide a fully safe API to clients, and then just use that safe API in many different places. You don't need thousands of project-specific linked list reimplementations.
It's not. We tried. Plus, it doesn't work on RDS, where most of production databases are. I think Citus was a great first step in the right direction, but it's time to scale the 99% of databases that don't run on Azure Citus already.
That's because Amazon wants to do whatever they like themselves... you apparently can get stuff to work by running your own masters (w/ citus extension) in EC2 backed by workers (Postgres RDS) in RDS:
Depends on your schema, really. The hard part is choosing a distribution key to use for sharding- if you've got something like tenant ID that's in most of your queries and big tables, it's pretty easy, but can be a pain otherwise.
For a multi-tenant use case, yeah, pretty close to thinking about partitioning.
For other use cases, there can be big gains from cross-shard queries that you can't really match with partitioning, but that's super use case dependent and not a guaranteed result.
> The only reason that "iPads are just unserious computing devices for real work" is because Apple chooses to limit them.
That’s their choice to make. As consumers it’s on us to make the right choices. What the author wants is a laptop not an iPad if they want a general purpose computing device
The article is just a way to poke the giant that is Apple just like we used to when we wrote Micro$oft
What the author wants is a 2-in-1. The iPad is that, it's just hobbled to be a really bad laptop. All the hardware pieces are there, the power, the keyboard/trackpad accessory, the touch screen, the pen. If you go look at the marketing for the iPad line it really does seem like maybe you can do anything with them. It's only once you get serious that it all falls apart due to the software.
The iPad Pro was designed to compete with the Surface Pro and it simultaneously does and doesn't. Anybody who expects more than a tablet with pen input will be disappointed or frustrated eventually.
So get educated on its limitations and shop accordingly. Not sure why that’s so hard for folks.
I wish my iPads were more like laptops. But I’m not Tim Cook and I bought one anyway. So I didn’t vote with my wallet and I don’t have enough money to buy enough shares to vote with my money.
What I can do is buy something more appropriate or even something else entirely like a Surface.
Folks downvoting my comment are effectively saying “no I think everything thing should do everything. It has a CPU that can run MacOS then it should! Open up the os, let me do whatever I want. Let me impose my thoughts on a private company. Rawr!”
When instead just don’t buy the iPad if that’s what you want. The MacBook Air is what you want. Or… adapt your computing to use the iPad as it was designed.
We live in a world where the production of computers is largely guided by economies of scale, so if a handful of big companies lock down their hardware (and they do) that reduces my options significantly.
Apple is one of the largest computer companies and sells some of the fastest hardware on the market, yet it's totally gimped by their market segmentation. That space could easily be occupied by a different kind of company.
iPads are a waste of silicon. Yes, I do know better than the consumer.
Exactly. The author is “using it wrong”. The iPad is an appliance much like the phone is. Get a MacBook Air and call it a day. The article is clickbait at best because everyone knows iPadOS is not as open as macOS.
To be fair, "theregister" is a big hint that you're going to be opening unsubstantiated clickbait 50% of the time (rising to 90% if it's relating to Apple.)
Absolutely. The entire "article" insults the reader by expecting him to believe such a stupid premise, or makes the author look stupid. Nobody who wants to do stuff at the command line would seriously buy a TABLET, especially not one from Apple.
Marc Andreesen owes his riches to Netscape whose ashes became Mozilla. I don’t understand why he doesn’t give the Mozilla foundation and endowment such that the interest on the endowment would fund work solely on the browser. They could then just work on the browser and nothing more.
No need to do marketing, have a venture arm, millions for management, etc. it could be a group of 10 or 20 really awesome engineers and maybe a bunch of passionate open source folks contributing.
Will he do it? No. Do I wish he would? Yes. Would I if I could? Hell yes because there needs to be a viable alternative to chrome and how is that possible when chrome butters their bread and pays their bills?
Or! The some hundreds of millions they did get from Google they just out in an endowment and then shrink staff (start with management) until they can live comfortably off the interest…
Right. The money would be a gift to a foundation where he couldn’t control it. A no strings attached 100% tax deductible gift to the foundation with the only strings that they focus on the browser and survive on the interest, and lay off unnecessary management (10-20 dedicated web engineers and a PM and an HR person what else do you need).
But do you also want the browser beholden to the parent company of its direct competitor?
This is a fantasy land hypothetical of course as we know exactly the kind of guy Marc is, he’ll want a say.
If it does go the foundation model as I’ve suggested (purely paying bills on the interest earned by the endowment and by donations) then perhaps it can’t afford to pay for 350+ engineers. That’s just the facts.
They’ve made $37.5M from investment income in 2023. [1] (That’s where I’m getting the 350 engineers figure from: $37.5M / $100k = 375.)
I’m not sure how risky their investments are. Also, I’m excluding donations altogether. If you can help prepare a more realistic model I’d be happy to share it!
It was doable, and it is doable, and they are doing it.
Like any other organization, Mozilla consists of people. Some of them might not care about the browser and are just here for the money – of course they want Google’s money, too! But I believe most want to do the right thing – the problem is, the focus has been lost for quite a while now.
> What about opening an issue with the incorrect results
I don't work for you.
> You sound like a toxic senior dev
I'm probably much nicer to the people I work with, but that's because an enormous amount of money is involved.
You want to have that kind of a conversation, I'll consider letting you tell me what to do, but you need to understand the service I'm providing for free doesn't come with that.
People don't like being told what to do. They are probably going to be in a bad mood if you waste their time with a bold claim that is so obviously false. You are lucky to have someone tell you that the software doesn't work, because you obviously wouldn't know otherwise.
Oh well it’s nice to know that if we work together you’ll be nice since you’re being paid to be.
But do you treat others outside of work like this? What if your partner makes a mistake? Your kid thinks they’ve done something awesome but have a huge flaw in whatever it is?
> They are probably going to be in a bad mood if you waste their time with a bold claim that is so obviously false.
Did you review this on company time? On your own time? How is your time being wasted giving feedback to another developer? You’re improving the community of developers. You don’t see the benefit of that?
I wonder how you tolerate failure? Weakness? In others. I don’t think well but what do I care? right? I’m not in the business of helping anyone better themselves or anything ;-)
I don’t think there are many people of such caliber in the country as Putin has gotten rid of any potential competition. It’s likely Western countries would be able to sign Budapest-like memorandums and get those nukes in favor of some guarantees.
Note how this is personified in the official propaganda and media. This is not "Russia", this is "Putin". This is a typical tactic to deny that whatever actions Russia has been taken reflect deeper interests and (Russian) public opinion but is instead only the result of a "mad man".
Anecdata sure … but I know some Russians that left Russia because of the war and unfortunately I know some that support it, too.
Buuuuut to say that Russia === Putin and they’re the same in that his war is their war is insane. IIF they had real open elections and still went to war then I’d say you have a point. But they don’t. It’s very much a war he is doing not that they want.
reply