> Crashes would be avoided by having every train know about the train ahead and behind, and unable to make any move which would cause a collision (ie. it is not allowed to slam the brakes on if there is a train right behind you).
You are assuming that a train will never have to suddenly stop. This will never fly in the real world. Even if you consider a completely closed railway system with no possibility of external obstructions, there are many kinds of failure that would cause modern trains to apply emergency breaks due to fail-safe designs.
If you remove the bit about not allowing to slam on the breaks, then you just described SelTrac. Even the first version used on the Vancouver SkyTrain (opened in the 80s) is capable of running trains closer than braking distance from what I remember reading. I don't believe it is actually enabled on many SelTrac systems though, because you still need to have safety margins. There is always the possibility that the train in front may decelerate at a rate higher than its emergency braking rate, like if it derailed or collided with external obstructions.
Qt 5.15 at this point has been out for 4 years, already out of "normal" commercial LTS and will reach the end of extended commercial LTS next year. They don't have any incentive to do this kind of change.
I don't know if it is the case on Windows 11, but I have surely been bitten by CMD batch files using LF line endings. I don't remember the exact issue but it may have been the one bug affecting labels. [1]
Every once in a while, navigating with the keyboard in Explorer will cause the window thread to hang up in a busy loop and I have to kill it. I have no idea if this is an Explorer bug or caused by other stuff.
How does this compare to ANGLE or the MetalANGLE fork, assuming I have some renderer code that already works on both OpenGL 3.2 core profile and OpenGL ES 3.0? (We are already using ANGLE on Windows with the D3D11 backend and might consider using something similar to stop relying on the "deprecated" native OpenGL implementation on macOS.)
Railway is a different problem space than road vehicles. Trains run on fixed tracks, has long braking distance, are much heavier, and accidents can be much more devastating. While self-driving cars may use cameras, lidar and radar for detection and brake on sight, trains need to know exactly how far they are allowed to go and what speed restrictions are ahead in order to brake in time.
Traditional lineside signals and signs do give enough information to drive a train by a computer, but the rail industry has already chosen decades ago to integrate signalling and automation with the infrastructure, which is a completely different approach than today's self-driving cars. As a result, heavy rail and metro trains will not be "self-driving" in the same way as self-driving cars.
Now, if you say trams that run on streets, then possibly. Trams are often driven by sight and has stronger braking so it is possible to apply the same principles from self-driving cars. In fact, Siemens has been developing and testing one such tram. [1] Though I think the problem space is very similar to self-driving cars. There is no steering, but it still has to handle pedestrians and other road traffic.
I would rather have my program hard crash on unexpected null than to have it silently ignore potential logic errors. I have never used a language with nil punning, but to me Option<T> still feels to be the best approach.
I am failing to see (1). It seems when you drop a file into the help viewer window, it is handled by the help viewer itself. You can try it with a random file. It either displays the file inside the help viewer as an HTML file, or a Internet Explorer-like download dialog shows up.
The PoC video showed that the current user isn't in the "Administrator" group (though there is another user "zeroday" in there), which makes it look like not a simple UAC bypass. Or perhaps I misunderstood something.
It seems that 7-zip opens the .chm help file using the HtmlHelp [1] WinAPI call. This API call does not even seem to run `hh.exe`. How does this privilege escalation actually work?
> This was a surprising one to me. Simplified Chinese was expectedly more efficient than Traditional Chinese, but both were beaten out by Cantonese (which also uses traditional characters).
My first reaction to this is: "What? Cantonese?" I just knew something is wrong.
So I checked the data and immediately see the issue. `yue_Hant_HK` ("Cantonese"), `zh_Hant_HK` (Chinese, Hong Kong) and `zh_Hant_MO` (Chinese, Macau) all uses the same text, while `zh_Hant` (Traditional Chinese) and `zh_Hant_TW` (Chinese, Taiwan) uses a different text.
As it turns out, there is no Cantonese, just plain written Chinese (書面語, written language as we would call it). Both Hong Kong and Taiwan use the Traditional Chinese script, but the two don't exactly use the same vocabularies due to regional differences. For example, the term "privacy" is "私隱" in Hong Kong, but "隱私" in Taiwan. This is why there exists two versions of Traditional Chinese translations of the same text. Since they are likely done by different people (assuming they are not machine translations) they have different translation styles, which contributes to the difference in length of the two paragraphs.
(Also, Cantonese can be written in Simplified Chinese, but that's all I will say regarding this topic.)
> Incidently, I saw Japanese text recently that was quoting both English AND Arabic in the same sentence. And this was in a block of vertical text. That is literally a worst-case scenario I think.
Look up Mongolian script and you might change your mind :)