Why do you say "probably"? We can measure and quantify the inhomogeneities very precisely, and they're tiny. This isn't a matter of opinion or intuition.
In a recovery scenario, you don't have the password or whatever you used to encrypt the key.
And again: the whole point E2EE is that you don't have to trust the provider. Open source in general doesn't help you here because you don't know what software or which version of the code the provider is running. Your only chance is to run open source client software, review it to ensure E2EE has been implement properly, then you don't need to trust the provider.
Either the provider knows the secret, then they can help you in a recovery scenario, but then they also can read your data. Or they don't know the secret, in which case they cannot help you in a recovery scenario.
There are plenty of banks in Germany which offer over-the-counter services, if you prefer to do banking as if it's 1999. Most of the time, when people say it's impossible to live without a smartphone, it's actually only impossible to enjoy the conveniences of the internet without a smartphone (at least in Germany). Besides these rentable scooters, I can't think of anything that actually requires a smartphone. Sure, you'll miss out on a lot of conveniences, but I remember a time where that was the norm, so it's not like it's unreasonable.
Think commercial. My company invested in a local rig since privacy is important to our customers and sometimes I want to use these models on private data.
It's not just cost. Many people in Germany claim they get sick or experience neck pain the instant they stand under an AC. I cannot relate at all and I'm very puzzled, but at the same time I don't want to deny their experience.
After an injury, you may want to get an MRI to help you recover and determine best course of action. If an MRI cost a million dollars, or a single MRI scan took an entire day (which means every machine within driving distance will be booked years in advance or will be reserved for only the most critical cases), you won't benefit from an MRI image.
"Megabytes per second per dollar" may not be the optimal way to phrase this, but cost and efficiency are a real concern.
I'd like to push back on that comparison. At least unlike Weinstein, Wolfram produced a genuinely impressive and useful piece of software, which empowers scientists and students worldwide. While his physics work is a little questionable and not too interesting, he doesn't seem to care too much what other people think. He'd never latch on to some podcast bro to give his ideas a wider reach. All Weinstein does is drop big names left and right and whine about how Big String Theory has taken over modern physics and suppresses free thinkers.
Most, if not all of these are just syntactic sugar. You can simply write `#heading()` instead. Although I'm not sure if there is an equivalent in math mode.
Have you tried showing Claude your output, or simply telling it to look at the PNG output? Together with some design or frontend skill you should get reasonable results.
> Much like operator overloading in other languages, catcode changes in TeX can indeed be misused and are sometimes confusing, but they're also a pretty useful solution to problems that would otherwise be tricky to solve.
I'm sorry, but I've never seen overloading of such fundamental characters like the comment character or escape character anywhere. Or at least if you use these characters inside a string, it's pretty clear that the string context is special. In LaTeX I have no way of knowing which catcodes a macro has modified without essentially parsing the entire thing, which breaks syntax highlighters and language servers (something that increases quality of life in other languages substantially), because the compile times are prohibitive. The decision to let users redefine %, \ and literally every character seems like a really, really bad idea to me.
Other languages and syntaxes seem to do just fine, so I'm not sure what you mean by tricky to solve.
> most of these are due to the fact that LaTeX is 40-year-old software built on a 50-year-old engine, and has remained backwards-compatible with documents throughout that entire time
I realize that, and I appreciate what LaTeX (and by extension TeX) has done. It's a giant in sciences and the software world, of absolutely critical importance, but still. We learned a lot of lessons about writing software in the last 50 years, and Typst is applying these from the ground up. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of confidence that LaTeX can be modernized.
Using LaTeX is mostly fine, except for the endless compile times, useless error messages, lack of unicode, etc. like the GP said.
I'm maintaining an internally used LaTeX document class and the development experience is even worse. TeX has no concept of such avant-garde ideas like lists, dictionaries, or namespaces. Things break all the time, and sometimes only when you load three specific packages in a specific order because they all patch each other's routines. I still haven't completely groked the idea of fragile commands and expanding macros. Characters can change meaning depending on context, even the `comment` character (%) or the `escape` character (\), (and I believe even the curly braces) for example when used inside `\path{}` or `\url{}` [1]. It makes a difference whether you comment out line endings or not. The LaTeX3 syntax looks like a bad joke. I mean, look at it:
My understanding is that ffmpeg is probably incredibly close to the metal, with tons of assembler mixed in. I imagine doing the same in Rust would include lots of `unsafe` blocks and a similar amount of assembly, so it wouldn't change much in terms of security. Or am I wrong?