facing this conflicting constraints problem where i want to a) make my ebike go very fast, b) maintain plausible proximity to legality, and c) not start a lithium ion battery fire
Sometimes I wish that rustc had a database of small breaking changes that affect only a handful of crates, so that we could on the fly patch them going forward. Things like "we now correctly check for lifetimes in assoc types" can technically be a breaking change that affects a handful of crates, but I want to ensure that building a project from today in 15 years doesn't require a compiler tool chain from today.
I guess this is the windows backwards compatibility approach. #rust#rustlang
@ekuber At neo4j I called this the "we got addition wrong" problem.
What if Cypher had a bug that added 1 to every addition? Then users would need to -1 every result. Once we discovered it, it would mean that every codebase that had patched the issue would now be broken even though we fixed the issue.
I would argue that what you describe would be a compiler config, because from the user's perspective it's like a reverse experimental feature.
@ekuber That means you put the burden on the user to flag which (now corrected) behaviors they depend on and, as long as they are present in the compiler, the project will keep compiling.
I'm not sure the compiler should know which crates depend on certain behaviors. That feels wrong.
@ekuber Editions, in this context, would be collections of "feature flags", right? If so, that would require discipline on both sides. Not a deal breaker, of course, but perhaps a different approach.
those devs and tech “influencers” who pioneered the technical work of putting “AI” shit in everything everywhere, and are—for the most part—the assholes who enabled our brave new “AI” world by actually figuring out how to make it run, are also going to be the people who get credit for criticising it after the bubble pops, aren’t they?
Everybody will latch onto their vague concerns and ignore the fact that they literally implemented the shit that got smeared everywhere, aren’t they?
@baldur The way I'm seeing it play out, the "concerns" they offer are functioning perfectly as the performative response to the criticism that targets them.
As a DBMS implementor, I have always assumed that a DB transaction should not be bound to a server side construct (a thread or a client connection, but instead should be an identifier that is transparent and transferrable between clients (subject to auth, of course).
So client thread A can start a tx, get a txId, that can be moved to client thread B which can use it to continue the tx.
Is that something useful for users of DBMSs? It's not hard to do, and I don't see many systems doing it.
Hm, bit of a long shot, but are there any physicists on here? I have a question: as the universe expands, light traveling through space is redshifted, which means it loses energy. Thermodynamics tells us that energy can't just disappear. Where does that energy go?