B) A mathematician working for Anthropic solved a problem mathematicians have been working on for more than a century, and then credited it to Claude for PR purposes
If you believe B is more likely, why would you then believe a proof in the form of a chat log, when said chat log could itself have been faked by Anthropic way more easily than solving the mathematical problem in the first place?
True, but not sure how it's relevant - you don't need memory corruption for the test to perform arbitrary I/O. And even if you trust the tests to not do anything bad, you don't need memory corruption for this to be an issue - any bug in the code emitted by the compiler could cause bad things to happen.
But all of this is ultimately completely unrelated to the concept of "unsafe". You can delete your home directory just fine in safe Rust/Go/Python/etc. You can write a compiler that emits broken code in the same languages; even in a 100% pure functional language with 0 side effects and a perfect bug-free implementation.
> if rustc emits machine code and then cargo immediately executes it, there's the same opportunity for end user memory being corrupted (due to miscompilation) as if rustc and cargo shared a code base
Your tests run in an entirely separate process from the compiler (and from cargo). This makes it very different from memory corruption in the compiler:
- The test process can only corrupt its own memory.
- You don't need "unsafe" to run tests. Just the ability to start another process.
- If you're cross-compiling, you wouldn't even be able to run the tests on the same machine (without emulation/compatibility layers)
Does roc run tests in the same process as the compiler?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. An empty train would still exist in the live train data. It does not depend on mobile phones, but on rail signals and other such tracking built into the rail infrastructure.
You are giving it to them. That's why the demo asks for your location permission, and that's why the API expects location info.
"You" here means another app that integrates their API (or you as an individual using the demo on their website). How the other app gets it is up to the other app - ideally it also just queries it directly and requires location permission.
I think you're misunderstanding what they are saying. They don't use background location data, but they do use your current location data. Try the "Find My Train" demo on their site - it asks for location permission.
Or their API - it also expects device location data:
> At a minimum, requests to the detect endpoint _must_ contain a device's location measurement. Additional fields can be included where available to improve the accuracy of the returned results as outlined below.
Presumably you still need a C++ compiler for LLVM itself though. Or... a C++ to C translator.
Edit: On second thought, that's only needed if you want to run rustc itself on the old hardware, which is probably not super useful given the main reason you would need to do this is if LLVM can't target that hardware.
For building code written in Rust for such old hardware, this would be sufficient.
Presumably you could trigger one of those onbeforeunload confirmation dialogs in that case.
I assume you would also have some sort of icon that indicates all of the changes you made have been synced (or the opposite, an icon for when they haven't yet).
Though of course, it doesn't help if the user outright kills the app or pulls the plug or whatever. But I think in that case they should expect to lose some data?
I don't like the app either, but it's not too hard to transfer the files directly to the phone over WiFi without using any of the cloud/editing things.
What's annoying is you have to do it in three steps: first transfer it to the app's internal storage, and then save it out to actual files, then delete the internal storage; and you need 2x the disk space.
(Another annoying thing is in some countries they just disable the 5 GHz WiFi, so transfers end up taking forever. Very annoying when traveling, and if I lived in one of those countries I would have definitely returned it)
It might sometimes prefetch the surrounding lines as well, but ultimately cache space is limited, so there is a trade-off. Every time you fill a line, you are throwing away something else that was cached there previously, which you may need again in the near future.
I guess that's Rosetta 2, and TFA is referring to Rosetta 1.
But don't worry, Rosetta 2 is also on the chopping block:
> Rosetta was designed to make the transition to Apple silicon easier, and we plan to make it available for the next two major macOS releases – through macOS 27 – as a general-purpose tool for Intel apps to help developers complete the migration of their apps. Beyond this timeframe, we will keep a subset of Rosetta functionality aimed at supporting older unmaintained gaming titles, that rely on Intel-based frameworks.
> A few places where we still help, even after iOS 27 ships:
> Google Wallet. Create a Pass is iPhone-only. Roughly half of the wallet-using world is on Android, and our generator builds Google Wallet passes from the same form.
What does this actually mean? Google Wallet has had a button to add your own passes for many years. How is the feature described here different?
A) Claude really produced this counterexample
B) A mathematician working for Anthropic solved a problem mathematicians have been working on for more than a century, and then credited it to Claude for PR purposes
If you believe B is more likely, why would you then believe a proof in the form of a chat log, when said chat log could itself have been faked by Anthropic way more easily than solving the mathematical problem in the first place?