Best practice when using .unwrap() in production code is to put a line of documentation immediately above the use of .unwrap() that describes the safety invariants which allow the unwrap to be safe.
Since code churn could eventually cause those safety invariants to be violated, I think it’s not a bad thing for a blunt audit of .unwrap() to bring your attention to those cases and prompt to reevaluate if the invariants are still satisfied.
But only if pattern matching were included, otherwise they would be as unpleasant as C++'s std::variant.
This makes a lot of sense, but the functions were Rust bindings for plain C functions, they weren’t function pointers. Granted I could have put pointers to the function bindings into fields in a struct and stored that struct in the mutex, but the ability to anyhow call the bindings would still exist.
It’s a massive win, and I would question the credibility of any systems programmer that doesn’t recognize that as soon as they understand the wrapper arrangement. I would have to assume that such people are going around making egregious errors in how they’re using mutexes in their C-like code, and are the reason Rust is such an important language to roll out everywhere.
The only time I’ve ever needed a Mutex<()> so far with Rust is when I had to interop with a C library which itself was not thread safe (unprotected use of global variables), so I needed to lock the placeholder mutex each time I called one of the C functions.
Valid questions. Do we have firm answers to any of them? And absent firm answers, what kind of risks to the safety of the general public are we willing to accept in service of ideological values?
Yeah… I’m all for compassion and understanding, but if someone is missing the voice in their head that says “Hey, we shouldn’t be killing people” then their circuitry is broken, no matter what age they are or what their circumstances are. And that broken circuitry poses a real and present danger to everyone in that person’s orbit.
I don’t support punitive incarceration, but the general public has the right to exist with a reasonable degree of certainty that they’re not likely to encounter a cold blooded murderer on any given day, and part of ensuring that is to incarcerate people who are known to kill others, at least until such a time that we can have a high degree of confidence that they won’t be doing that again.
The person being a child doesn’t really change that part of the social contract. I promise you won’t be any less upset if someone you love is murdered by a child than by an adult.
One thing I’ve noticed among friends and family, who lean quite left compared to the general public and would be generally supportive of progressive policies, is that there’s a belief that progressive policies are unpopular outside of our circle and therefore in the primary they must vote for a candidate who triangulates in order appeal to the majority in the general election. Because a centrist from the Democratic Party is better than anything we can hope for from the Republican Party.
I try to show them statistics that progressive policies are broadly popular across both parties as long as they are not presented with labels of “socialism” or “progressivism” but the reality that we all need to contend with is that we cannot easily escape the unfair baggage that these labels carry in our society where the big media cartel controls the narrative.
I think if we got rid of FPTP and got rid of primaries we’d see an enormous swing in favor progressive candidates. In my mind that electoral reform is the key thing to pursue. Well that and literally anything related to mitigating the climate crisis because that one really can’t wait.
I assume he thinks this will win over more Gen Z than it will lose him Boomers, and no one will ever hold him to this promise anyway.
Countries ranked in descending order by number of school shootings from 2009-2018:
One of these is not like the others. This isn’t exactly a fact of life in other parts of the world.
This is very insulting, Dr. Doom is an intelligent and effective ruler, please do not draw such an unfair comparison between him and Musk. Fictional character feelings matter.
It sure worked out positively for her Walz pick.
I actually remember her being a standout at the debates until Tulsi Gabbard managed to latch onto a line of attack that hurt her credibility as the progressive candidate that she was presenting herself as. Shortly after that traction was lost I think she saw the writing on the wall and exited gracefully, which obviously worked in her favor because it made it easy for Biden to tap her for VP.
I really can’t feel bad for these women that get involved with jackass conservative men. There were plenty of signals that they either ignored or saw as green flags. For her to be in her position is either extreme negligence or sheer karma, probably the latter.
But I feel very bad for any children that land in that position. They did nothing to deserve what they’re going through.
It worked for Trump, why not for others? 🤷♂️
I find it hard to believe that anyone who votes Republican will care enough about Taylor Swift’s influence to change their vote, but I can absolutely believe that her endorsement would swing the numbers in a big way if she just motivates politically apathetic Swifties to go to the polls.
That’s why he couldn’t hold it in.
Some might not realize that this is necessary to avoid the Australian sandworms. She was just trying to share her culture with us, and we gave her so much grief for it, smh.
People keep saying he’s getting worse, but to me he just seems like the same old narcissistic racist asshole that he’s always been 🤷♂️
Maybe his “charisma”, if you can call it that, is faltering a bit, but he may just be off balance from the sudden storm of twists over the past month.
You’d be amazed at how resistant most people are to anything that feels unfamiliar, even if it’s good for them. Coal and oil jobs are familiar, green jobs are not.
It should be as simple as you’re suggesting, but sadly it isn’t.