vivendi

Tbqf this shit sounds like some GenZ MK-ULTRA project being worked on in skunkworks

Shut the FUCK up when you have no idea what furry/furry identity is

Hating on us harmless lot is just thinly veiled fascist shit, because the same way DEI is code word for N****rs, furry has become the socially acceptable code for anything LGBT

So improve yourself

As a wise man once said, check yoself brfo yp wreck yoself

I think he is mistaking the method of power analysis to defeat cryptography with whatever the fuck he's talking about

For the record, board power analysis cannot be done by your power provider

Yeah and those are the ones currently identified (btw that issue isn't completely fixed) because rust never was nor advertised itself as sound. Meaning, you gotta be careful when writing Rust code too. Not as much as C++, but it's not a magical shield against memory problems like people have been shilling it as.

A) Rust doesn't have a formal specification other than "whatever the fuck our team hallucinated in this compiler version"

B) Doesn't matter the definition if it fucks your day because you're not careful.

Sure sure Heil Rust but be mindful of the fuck you're doing before you get bit ¯\_ (ツ) _/¯

Have you heard about cve-rs?

https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

Blazingly fast memory failures with no unsafe blocks in pure Rust.

Edit: also I wish whoever designed the syntax for rust to burn in hell for eternity

Edit 2: Before the Cult of Rust™ sends their assassins to take out my family, I am not hating on Rust (except the syntax) and I'm not a C absolutist, I am just telling you to be aware of the limitations of your tools

How did you derive the number?

A very specific number?

Always check your programs on -O0 or pay the price

Shit gets really fun when you find out your code is a edge case for compiler optimization and should never be optimized away (although this is very very rare for -O2)

No there is not. Borrow checking and RAII existed in C++ too and there is no formal axiomatic proof of their safety in a general sense. Only to a very clearly defined degree.

In fact, someone found memory bugs in Rust, again, because it is NOT soundly memory safe.

Dart is soundly Null-safe. Meaning it can never mathematically compile null unsafe code unless you explicitly say you're OK with it. Kotlin is simply Null safe, meaning it can run into bullshit null conditions.

The same thing with Rust: don't let it lull you into a sense of security that doesn't exist.