You say that as if machines don’t get dirty and still require a good amount of hygiene/cleaning to keep up
Don’t get me wrong though because I am also in favor of automation only because I believe it will make some parts of work more bearable, minus the job displacement problem caused by our current economic model…
Just fork it 🤓
It definitely feels like a knee jerk reaction, but there would be some merit to it: The Rust language feels apt to implement a kernel with. If I remember correctly that’s what Redox is trying to accomplish? https://redox-os.org/
Why would using it on PC degrade image quality, if anything a desktop with a good GPU would potentially beat a PS5 in terms of graphics?
An adapter will be required to plug the PSVR2 though, that information is already available. But once plugged it should work with SteamVR.
Some places are like that
Antagonizing the borrow checker is wrong. If it screams it does so to prevent you from writing a mistake. Eventually once you have enough experience you should write code in such a way that doesn’t trip the borrow checker because you know how to properly handle your references.
Is it difficult to learn at first? Yes, but the benefits of learning this outweighs the downsides such as writing code that may use references when it shouldn’t.
I’m not a Rust aficionado, but the few Rust I’ve written opened my eyes on issues that I have been dealing with in other languages but for which I was blind.
Lastly I tried following a Godot project tutorial that was using GDScript except I challenged myself to follow it but rewrite the examples given using Rust’s bindings for Godot. It was definitely more cumbersome to work with, but I might also have been doing something wrong (such as blindly transcribing GDscript instead of writing more idiomatic Rust).
All of that to say 1) borrow checker is your friend and 2) scripting languages will always be more convenient at the cost of being way more dirty (way less safeties)
In the end you need to pick the right tool for the job. Multiple tools may be used within the same project.
The message transferred between the particles supposedly FTL does contain information though. What I meant was that we cannot encode our own arbitrary information on top of it. The message has a physical effect on reality, without it the state we find the particles in cannot be respected.
Just reconsider this: If we agree that the result of a measurement is totally random (no hidden variable predetermining the result of the measurement) but that once we measure and know the state of one particle then we know with certainty the state of the other particle (entanglement): information about the collapse of the first measured particle was shared to the other so that it’s no longer random.
edit: If your argument is about “sharing information doesn’t imply transmission” then let’s stop here and leave this thread agreeing that “information was shared” :)
I have no opinions on what shape the information sharing takes. Nor am I interested in guessing.
I mean you can setup a source of entangled particles and two very far detectors that would do measurements roughly at the same time on each particle in such a way that information traveling at the speed of light wouldn’t have time to travel the distance between both detectors.
You can then just gather roughly simultaneous measurements and at a later time join the datasets from both detectors to see what one measured vs the other for each pair.
If I understand correctly the current observations show that collapsing the state of one of the particle influences the other all the way at the other detector. Since there’s no hidden variables that predetermine the result of measurements while the result of the collapse is random, and the fact that particles still respect the correlation over any distance is why there seem to be a FTL communication between the particles.
Something has to be communicated between the particles for the influence to work FTL, but it also seem we cannot leverage this phenomenon to send “actual information” this way :/
edit: Important point with that experiment: once the particles have been observed, if you try the experiment a second time using the same particles, then you’ll get different results, this time in line with hidden variables because the particle’s state already collapsed.
If you can avoid running batch files altogether then great, amazing. But there are projects out there using Rust that still depend on running those and that’s the focus of the issue… But yeah I cannot wait until the day I won’t hear about cmd.exe again.
The 2022 nobel prize was given to experimentalists that observed the violation of Bell’s inequality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
I’m genuinely not an expert but I get it to mean that there aren’t hidden variables created alongside the entangled particles.
To run a batch file, you must start the command interpreter; set lpApplicationName to cmd.exe and set lpCommandLine to the following arguments: /c plus the name of the batch file.
Because a batch file (.bat or .cmd) is basically a set of cmd.exe instructions I guess that’s why you can’t get away from it.
And as if making sense of this CreateProcessA system call wasn’t funny enough, you also need to figure out how to safely prepare that lpCommandLine for it following all of cmd.exe’s weird escaping rules… lol
It’s definitely not Rust’s fault, but it’s kinda Windows’ one and cmd.exe escape logic… It’s really difficult to write logic that will correctly escape any argument given to it, cmd.exe really is a pain to deal with :/
The Rust security team faced a significant challenge when dealing with cmd.exe’s complexity since they couldn’t find a solution that would correctly escape arguments in all cases.
As a result, they had to improve the robustness of the escaping code and modify the Command API. If the Command API cannot safely escape an argument while spawning the process, it returns an InvalidInput error.
“If you implement the escaping yourself or only handle trusted inputs, on Windows you can also use the CommandExt::raw_arg method to bypass the standard library’s escaping logic,” the Rust Security Response WG added.
I get that in situations where they can’t safely escape a parameter they’ll just stop with an error, which sound as sane as one could go with this!
I wouldn’t call that “messy and inefficient” but you do you. I’d be curious to know what’s a “clean and efficient” solution for you when it comes to routing packets around the planet :)
It’s like you’re sucking the fun out of us… Wait a minute
Ever heard of CREDIT? /s
Long COVID Seems to Be a Brain Injury, Scientists Discover
Bad title maybe
deleted by creator
You’re right that this is not generating monetary gains
But it’s generating outrage towards Google when what you accuse them of doing isn’t the reality, that’s pretty disingenuous
Not defending Google as a whole, but let’s keep honest about the current developments
The day sponsored trips are the default is the day I’m dropping Maps
Please change “added a sponsored detour” to “proposed a sponsored detour” and it won’t be as misleading anymore
Because believe it or not Twitter is still popular despite everything