> … go on to talk about removing the required scope to avoid RAISI .. then go on to talk about compile-time enforcement of exception handling…

Is this an LLM prompt?

The US's upper class is afraid of China taking over as the biggest economy in the world.

They did. Many got so rich because of China.

they tried

That sentiment is just so unnecessary but oh well Rust is literally their brain child so.

Libpng and libjpeg have been huge sources oh high severity security vulnerabilities. It is not unnecessary at all.

Your friend can still enclose the phrases of the lyrics with double quotes to force an exact match on each of them.

Now with verbatim if you have a typo they no longer show the number of results up front so you often don't notice and only get sources with the same typo, furthering the impression that Google's results suck.

"Google hides search results count under tools section"

https://searchengineland.com/google-hides-search-results-cou...

Did you even read the article? The part where it talks about problems with destructors is about halfway through.

TBF the essay is rather strangely structured, the entire two thirds of the essay covering constructors and overloading has only ancillary relevance to the actual problem, Rust has neither and does RAII just fine after all (though it does have name mangling).

The author even acknowledges halfway through that it’s basically a strawman:

> It’s not a bad argument; after all, the entire above argument hinges on the idea of stealing from C++ entirely and copying their semantics bit-for-bit.

To me, only after that does it engage with the underlying concept in a way which is engaging and convincing. But you’ve had to trawl through 2500 words to get to that point.

They don’t “assume” C++-like destructor, they’re the primary author of the N3199 “defer” proposal for C.

This is a response to people contacting / criticising them asking for destructors instead of defer.

The entire point of the blog post (written by the author of the C defer proposal) is to motivate why C should have defer. It is an attempt to summarize one of the most common criticisms of the proposal.

There used to be a solar program in Vietnam, which made everyone jump onto the bandwagon. Lack of infrastructure planning, however, meant all of that solar energy could overpower the grid, and so the program has been stopped. To date, one can install their own solar system, but the electricity would be bought by the government at a price of zero, and they cannot sell it to anyone else.

In the algorithm depicted in the paper, if no elements manage to be eliminated from the set, why not just retry rather than return ⊥?

Retrying would cause errors in the math. Personally I think a better modification would be to get into next round right away.

What about when the consumers pay for software and still get their data harvested and the product enshittified?

Microsoft Windows has entered the chat. Apparently the next insiders version has even more ads in the start menu.

This stuff is so horrific.

The Framework laptop 16 features replaceable GPU.

I'm writing this from my Framework 16 with GPU and it is the best laptop I've ever known. It's heavy and big and not the most portable, but I knew that would be the case going into it and I have no regrets

> The Framework laptop 16 features replaceable GPU.

In a way I don't mind having non-replaceable ram in the framework ecosystem as an option. Put simply because the motherboard itself is modular and needs to be upgraded for the CPU. At that point though I would prefer on integrated ram CPU/GPU.

These are very obscure, or perhaps I mean to say niche laptop manufacturers. We need this standard for all of them, HP, Lenovo, Acer etc.

Framework open sources most of their schematics, if I understand correctly. So it should be possible for others to use the same standard, if they wanted to. (they don't want to)

Published here: https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/ExpansionBay

The form factor isn't great for being a vendor-neutral thing.

If we can convince the companies to actually try for compatibility, then a revival of MXM is probably a significantly better option.

MXM was problematic because the inflexibility of the form factor to upgrade a given system. If your laptop size, power and cooling was designed for a gtx1030 you couldn't replace it with a gtx1080 module.

In framework's case, the cooling is integrated in the gpu module, and both it's size, cooling and power deliver can be adjusted depending on the gpu power.

I don't mind having a wattage limit on the slot. That's easy to factor into purchasing decisions. The much bigger issues are how custom each kind was, with very limited competition on individual modules and a big conflict of interest in wanting to sell you a new laptop.

A friend of mine was betrayed on this by MSI, where laptops with GTX 900 series GPUs were promised upgrades and then when the 1000 series came out they didn't offer any. I think they did make weak excuses about power use, but a 1060 would have fit within the power budget fine and been an enormous upgrade. A few people have even gotten 1060 modules to work with BIOS edits, so it wasn't some other incompatibility. It seems like they saw they couldn't offer a 1080 and threw out the entire project and promise, and then offered a mild discount on a brand new laptop, no other recourse.

Last time I tried Godot with C# in Visual studio, when I debugged I could not see the console output, and when I ran with the console output I could not debug (the breakpoints weren't hit). A Google search later and turns out it wasn't just me.

Godot C# works pretty seamlessly with VSCode and has improved dramatically over the years. It did regress a bit in Godot 4 after swapping to the newer .net "core" (in terms of platform support) but as of 4.2 I have had no issues at all.

How long ago was that? I only started with the most recent version of godot and it all works as expected.

However, I am also using Rider.