> disassembling the stars to make them live a thousand times longer
Why would they do that when there are insane amounts of start with billions of years of life ahead of them. What purpose would that serve at this point in time?
> So people published code that could be referenced and copied on GitHub. There was no ethical problem, the world, society were happy.
This code has different licenses. You can't just copy code randomly without checking license first.
Copilot serves it stripped of the license to unaware users. Even if copilot user wants only to reuse code licensed in a way that allows it copilot will serve him code from restrictive licenses without him being aware.
GPU driver, most devs are senior. Hundreds of thousands of lines of code in the "slice" my team is interested in.
Team for our component has on it's own has probably over 40 people.
Driver should be even more prone to programming bugs because most of it is about manipulating data in raw "untyped" memory.
I work in probably what is considered one of the least "safe" languages: C++
The issues that Rust is supposed to help with are simply not what we spent time on. All the bugs reported are pretty much exclusively root caused to "business logic".
From recent time I can recall only one that was a programming mistake and not architecture/business logic related. It was a missing break in a switch that already had some fallthroughs so it didn't look incorrect at a glance.
I do understand what Rust is supposed to provide but in practice it's simply an extremely minor source of bugs.
This article is super overcomplicated.
All it had to say was that rust tells you when you keep reference to on stack variable after it goes out of scope. Context provided adds nothing.
I must say - as someone who doesn't use rust - I haven't had this type of issue in years, and when I did it wasn't hard to debug. You get corrupted data, set data breakpoint and in the provided example you will see it being modified by unrelated operations on stack. From there there is only one conclusion. Authors reactions seems to be a bit exaggerated.
To be fair youtube is not really social media in traditional sense. It's more of a content delivery platform. It's not a place where you go to watch pixtures from your friends holiday or political hot takes but more traditional entertainment.
That's an advantage. Since google tuned up their engine to treat authoritative results as better their searches became absolute dogshit.
You search for a very specific thing and all the results are big sites that have said something that contains two of the 6 words you search for in a completely generic article that helps you none.
My favorite is when your query contains a word that is the very essence of what you search for and google chooses to display results without it so you have to do extra click "yes I actually want to search for what I said I want to search for".
Why would they do that when there are insane amounts of start with billions of years of life ahead of them. What purpose would that serve at this point in time?