There is no "must use GC" mode, as far as I'm aware, but the footguns you describe only exist if the programmers opt-out of the GC. It's somewhat similar to using JNI/FFM in Java: it's possible to escape the safety of the VM. Though it's much easier to do so in D.
> “We are also working on providing a new licensing arrangement which will allow third parties to apply to use our data. We will provide more information on this in the coming weeks.
Good point. To clarify my stance: what I meant is that the narrative of the article is the following: AI made us change the playbook and so now, because of AI, the playbook is this one. Which is like saying that Sun Tzu wrote the cited line of the Art of War in a second edition, whereas his first version was "completely different".
It's pretty frustrating when something advertises itself as open source and yet there's no link to its source to be found. There's even a footer that says "Polis is powered by support from people like you. Contribute here." But it's just a financial donation link.
Participants did not choose to give themselves electric shocks continuously. The average was around once during the entire 15-min window. It also showed a stark difference in gender: only 25% of women participants did it while 67% of men did it. All of them did not enjoy it (but that's obvious). 1 man shocked himself more than 190 times during the 15-min period, so the average data is much higher because of him.
So overall, it is correct that the human mind will seek stimulus (even negative ones) if they're bored/have nothing to do but nothing suggests they will give themselves continous painful "electric shocks than be alone".
Additionally, they were alone, but they also had no cellphones, no computers, nothing to engage their brains with other than the possibility to give themselves a small 4 volt shock. And most of them did it once and not again. I think it speaks more to human curiosity than the idea that you'll prefer pain to social isolation.
Since you're so eager to construe his support for peaceful protest as support for civil unrest, I therefore think it's fair if I construe your defence of ICE to mean support for their extrajudicial executions and the people who dress up as ICE (ie: masked men dragging people at gunpoint into unmarked vans) to kidnap and rape people.
You can construe what you want, but I don't put my political (or any other views) into unrelated posts and try to conceal/justify it later.
My point is not about the views - its still free internet and most of us live in free speech countries - its about putting it out there while being fully aware that many people will read the news post about a popular language and then talking how its not a political statement.
You seem to have vastly misread his comment in your defensiveness: 1) his comment is not a concealment or a justification, it's an elaboration. This is more than mere semantic nitpick: he doesn't need to justify anything to you or conceal anything from you; he is not seeking your approval. Similarly 2) nor did he say it's "not a political statement", he said it "isn't some hypothetical political agenda", which to me has the extremely obvious meaning that it's not a virtue signal or other ulterior motive, that he may actually be dead by next week. If anything, he's confirming without a doubt that he included politics in his devlog, not denying it. Did his inclusion of "Abolish ICE" at the very bottom of his devlog really put you so off-kilter? Good grief, go outside.
This is only true in the most technical sense: you can easily opt-out of the GC, but you will struggle with the standard library, and probably most third-party libraries too. It's the baseline assumption after all, hence why it's opt-out, not opt-in. There was a DConf talk about the future of Phobos which indicated increased support for @nogc, but this is a ways away, and even then. If you're opting-out of the GC, you are giving up a lot. And honestly, if you really don't want the GC, you may be better off with Zig.
> Elections really do happen in the UK and really do determine who is Prime Minister.
Different person, but while this is true, it's also true that the Prime Minister is not elected: they [ordinarily] emerge as being the leader of whichever party commands a majority in Parliament. It's how we've had so much Prime-Minister turnover since the Brexit referendum: those didn't happen because the electorate "determined" it.
Yes sure, it’s a simplification to say that elections always directly determine who the Prime Minister is, and I probably should have been clearer on that point. However, this difference between a parliamentary system and a presidential one has nothing to do with rogue Kings going mad with power.
reply