I quite agree with the overall point but can we leave this kind of discourse on X, please? It doesn't add much, it just feels caustic for effect and engagement farming.
Which MAGA comment, specifically? Are you referring to this?
> While there are things I would handle differently than the current U.S. administration, I appreciate @JDVance taking a leadership role in recognizing this type of regulation is a fundamental unfair trade issue [...]
You may or may not agree, it hardly seems MAGA though.
> You do what a country tells you to do as a foreigner, or you leave.
I suppose you're right. You're still allowed to criticize the government's decisions though! This is certainly true in Italy, which has quite reasonable laws with regards to freedom of speech.
> what is he aiming to achieve here by disrespecting their government
Western government instituitions are hardly sacred. Again, people are allowed to criticize them, or disrespect them event if they so desire. What he's trying to achieve is a more just and reasonable application of the law, as it's quite clear if you'll care to carefully read the tweet instead of raging at his supposed disrespect for the Italian government.
> there are plenty of other watches that are arguably better due to them being made by robots
In the world of watches, this logic extends far beyond "handmade vs made by robots". Quartz, for example, is better than automatic & mechanical in every single quantitative metric, yet perceived as lower value due to the lack of craftsmanship.
I believe this is technically true, but somewhat myopic when it comes to how maintainers approach unsafe blocks in Rust.
UBs have unlimited blast radius by definition, and you'll need to write correct code in all your unsafe blocks to ensure your application is 100% memory-safe. There's no debate around that. From this perspective, there's no difference between a C application and a Rust one which contains a single, incorrect unsafe block.
The appreciable difference between the two, however, is how much more debuggable and auditable an unsafe block is. There's usually not that many of them, and they're easily greppable. Those (hopefully) very few lines of code in your entire application benefit from a level of attention and scrutiny that teams can hardly afford for entire C codebases.
Another possible solution would be to simply... remove draws from the game. Instead of checkmating the goal becomes to capture the opponent's king.
Needless to say, no one likes this idea because it throws out of the window centuries of game theory. Endgames would be completely different. I'm not convinced it would be a less interesting game, though.
Why is it still invite-only? They had (have?) A unique opportunity with people begging to use their service... they were in the right place at the right time, and they willingly decided to limit sign-ups and let the hype die. I'm baffled.
I've been a paying customer for more than a year, in my experience DDG is not even in the same league as Kagi. DDG provides a noticeably worse search experience than Google for most queries, whereas Kagi is either just as good or often better than Google.
Waymo takes responsibility for all accidents and Tesla is able to drive autonomously at 40km/h on highways, but neither does both. Mercedes does. That's –I believe– the point that parent is making.
Now, I'd argue that Waymo has probably somewhat solved highways already as they're much simpler than city driving, they're just not offering it to the public yet.