calcopiritus

Meanwhile game studios make profit and still lay off their employees.

The SUV was very far when the jeep entered the intersection. The SUV didn't even appear in the video when the jeep started crossing. If that SUV weren't speeding that much that was perfectly safe to cross. How can the jeep imagine that the SUV was going that fast? When it entered the intersection the SUV might have even been too far to see how fast it was really going.

And that's why lunch should be paid if it's inside the workday.

I thought teflon being long is what made it safe. It's the smaller molecules used in the process of making the long Teflon that are bad.

I learned python with it back in the day. However, since then, python 3 has come out. And I believe their python 3 course is paid instead of free.

You can go through one of their free courses. If you like it, go for a paid one, if you don't, search for other resources.

It is not propaganda as it is factual information. If you believe this is 4D chess from Google to manipulate us to dislike Firefox you are out of your mind. https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e this is an actual commit made by mozilla. It was not made by Google.

Changes include:

• Removing "we don't sell access to your data". Curiously this change is only for the TOU. Presumable because that is legally binding. Idk where the "else" branch is displayed though.
• Removing this question from FAQ: "Does Firefox sell your personal data? Nope. Never has, never will (...). That's a promise"
• Remove another mention in the TOU "and we don't sell your personal data". That again was not removed from the "else" branch

That to me indicates one of the following:

• They have started selling data.
• They plan on selling data in the near future.
• They don't feel confident that they can keep that promise forever. That is, they see a future where they sell data.

I don't like either of those alternatives.

I don't know if they are able to sell the data you mentioned. Because I'm not in the enshittification minds of giant American corporations. 20 years ago people would laugh at the idea of buying data about the screen size of a user. But now they do, and use it for fingerprinting. If recent history has shown anything is that most data has some kind of value. And giant corporations will find their way to use that data against users.

I've seen way too many companies that were supposed to be the cool kids and were doing everything morally enshittify. There's no reason to believe Mozilla is going to be different. They're showing the same signs.

You probably missed the news. But Firefox is becoming a data seller too.

Recently they updated their policies, since they are on GitHub you can see the exact changes.

One of them was the elimination of a phrase like "we won't sell your data, and that's a promise". So promise broken I guess.

With your definition this conversation doesn't make sense though. Since rust's direct array access doesn't perform bounds checks when building in release mode. And it doesn't require using unsafe.

As I said, I don't consider going out of bounds of a buffer a memory safety issue. Forcing the programmer to handle an out-of-bounds case every time there is an array access can be incredibly tedious. So much that not even rust forces you to do so. And if that language has iterators, it's even less of an issue.

I consider out-of-bounds array access to same as casting a pointer to another type. Just because a language lets you do it, it doesn't mean that it is not memory safe. It is a performance feature, since checking the bounds every time is always possible (and incredibly easy to implement), but also with too big of an impact when you could just check the length once per loop instead of per loop iteration.

How can you not have memory-safety while also having a garbage collector?

Garbage collection means that all objects live as long as you have a reference to it. Which means that you can only dereference a pointer to invalid memory if you willingly create an invalid pointer, or reinterpret the type of one pointer into another. Going out of bounds of an array counts as the first case.

If a language has garbage collection but no compiler/interpreter supports it, then the language doesn't have garbage collection.

Null safety and memory safety are different features.

Null safety means that you cannot access a struct's fields without first checking if the pointer to that struct isn't null. And this must be a compile-time check.

Memory safety means that you cannot read or write to/from memory that has been free-ed. Without leaks ofc, otherwise it would be very easy.

Barcelona in particular is a bit more difficult than the rest of Europe since we have a different rail standard in Spain.

But also Barcelona in particular is very close to the french border. So making one connection there doesn't sound too bad.