MForster

He didn't say that.

The sentence that you quoted is more generic. The Zig issue is only one example of "some reason".

Or the GEZ... :-)

It also equals x with appropriate assumptions (x > 0).

You are talking about spatial safety. There are a few other types of memory safety:

- temporal safety (e.g. no use after free) - initialization safety (no read of initialized memory) - thread safety (no data races) - type safety (accessing memory with the correct type)

The main things that drives me crazy about jj is that all changes are always staged implicitly.

That's one way to look at it, but I would encourage you to think about it a bit differently.

JJ does not have a concept of "staging", it only has changes and commits. Yes, it automatically snapshots the workspace commit, but I wouldn't use the workspace commit as your staging area. If you want to do explicit staging use the parent commit (@-) as your staging area. You can move changes from the workspace commit (@) to the staging area (@-) explicitly, just like in Git. And you can "commit" (Git terminology) your staging area by starting a new staging area.

The difference here really is "only" that the workspace, the index, and committed changes are modeled with the same concept. And that is very powerful. Admittedly you have to make an informed decision on how to map your workflows onto the model, but that is what comes with the powerful flexibility that it gives you.

You don't even need to re-clone. You can add jj to an existing git repo.

The CDU has moved from very right to less right, but still right-of-center under Merkel. After Merkel they have moved back right, maybe even more than they were to compete with the extremists.

It's quite the opposite. This is intended for engineers to make good trade-off decisions as a rule of thumb without financial micromanaging.

You can still use a similar workflow as with the index. The difference is that the staging area is modeled as a commit, so it's not another concept that will take a while to grok.

Same with the working copy.

https://jj-vcs.github.io/jj/latest/sapling-comparison/

And here I was expecting that I could edit the text and the app would change the audio file to say what I had typed...

It's multiple locks, first up, then down. The middle section is at a higher altitude than the ocean on both sides

Is it because of the enemies?

FWIW, you can turn them off. I always play with them disabled. Just not what I'm interested in. You might enjoy that, too.

I also enjoyed shapez, but it's no comparison to the depth of Factorio, especially with mods.

This is not at all what Google does, though.

This looks great.

Would be even better if it lived in VSCode, auto-syncing with my DDL files...

Rust by default doesn't do reference counting.

You can opt into reference counting with `std::rc::Rc`. (You can even opt into mark-and-sweep GC using the `gc` crate, but this isn't done much...).

Yes, that's what I did (and said so in the top post)

I get moderation of replies. But I choose myself who I follow. Nobody needs to moderate that.

I think that's the wrong analogy. It's more: Why does a landlord not get a say in who their tenants invite to dinner?

Why do admins get a say in who their users follow in the first place? As long as the content isn't illegal or challenges the stability of the instance this should be up to the users alone.

This issue alone made me set up my own instance, but many users don't have that option.

Unreadable on a phone...

What if there are more than three cursor locations? Like a bold link?

Sorry for getting the terminology wrong. I don't use iPhones.

I meant coupling the "Find My network" feature for iPhones and AirTags.

As opposed to not linking "find my phone" to "find AirTags".

Thanks for pointing out the encryption. Would be nice if the original article did explain a bit what's actually going on...

Thanks for pointing out the encryption. That changes things a bit, IMHO.

Would have been nice if the article explained a bit what is actually happening. The wikipedia article doesn't mention it either...

Sorry for coming across as using bad faith. It's just that I didn't understand the overall model. And the article didn't explain it.

Also, I wouldn't blame the victim. I'd rather blame Apple for making their users opt in.

Ah, so Apple is linking the feature of finding _my_ phone with reporting on lots of others? That explains why people turn it on, but I find that creepy.

So, enough iPhone users opt in to surveillance to make this a globally useful method for stalking? Wow.