I think some people just get an irrational block about learning particular things. Like maybe you struggle with a music class in school and just identify as being incapable of learning an instrument, for example, even if they're a skilled learner otherwise. Can't speak for OP, obviously.
My issue with it is that it's a vendor. The need for identification is fair, and I'm not worried about the govt having it. I'm worried about _id.me_ having it.
Just went through this myself. I gave in and made the account, only to then find out I was too late to give them my direct deposit info anyway. (If it's any peace of mind, I did eventually get that check.)
If I'm understanding that they're waiting this 5 minutes when they try to launch the game, there's a setting (go to Downloads, scroll down) to do the shader compilation in the background
> That creates the expectation, rightly or not, that the Arch User Repository provides some degree of protections for Arch Users against the build sources hosted there being compromised.
The main page of the AUR website says, in bold, "DISCLAIMER: AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk."
I similarly used it to finally facilitate a switch to Arch to a couple months ago. Not technically a tool, but it was very convenient to take the Arch wiki, and personalize it by saying "My hardware is X and my use case is Y, can you filter out the 90% of things from here that aren't relevant to me?"
I don't think Codeberg wants to be a GitHub alternative. In particular, I don't think they want to support the use cases of someone hosting a bunch of private repos, or someone hosting commercialized code.
It doesn't even need to be random. What if you send an instance of a proprietary file format? Is the company required to share the spec and toolchain so that the govt can verify it (probably) isn't an encrypted message?
I've been having fun trying out Zig recently; would recommend. FYI that they released a big batch of API changes in April (version 0.16.0) so be mindful of learning from old resources.
Wouldn’t call myself an expert in either, but I think 2 things stand out far more than anything else:
1. Rust is effectively as strict as can be in terms of ownership. In Zig you can just allocate some memory and then start slinging pointers (or slices) all over. If you’re doing this then you’re presumably doing it for mutability and you don’t strictly know where that pointer ends up once you’ve passed it on.
2. Rust’s metaprogramming is split among a couple different things (e.g. traits, macros), whereas Zig’s is unified (comptime). comptime is (at least advertised as) “just normal Zig code” and Rust macros are a great example of “this doesn’t work at all like the base language”.
#1 boils down to “can the LLM solve the pointer aliasing here?” and #2 is translating between metaprogramming paradigms. Could work but a line-by-line translation is a pipe dream.