(This is why Rust is focusing heavily on interop right now, if it is easier to integrate more projects can use it)

The problem is updating a decently sized program from one version of a compiler to another can take man months to do and that doesn't typically include intentional breaking changes.

A C++ change that requires updating 1% can be several hundreds of thousands of updates which is on the scale of beyond a man year depending on if you can regex cheat.

The fear the author is glossing over (I wouldn't say ignore they acknowledge there are reasons) is when faced with a man year to update people just don't.

Especially when the most interesting breaking changes don't tend to be synthetic (you can just make modules look like code you couldn't write before after all) but instead be subtle changes in behavior.

That means that you won't necessarily even know all the breakages which is a horrifying concept.

Even if Nvidia hit a wall and can't outclass its old chips they still have a significant experation date on them since using them in data center situations destroys them over relatively short time frames for finance (a few years).

Note that for an asset class the fact that they can last longer isn't important, if they are fungible it means investors need to predictably know the lifespan which requires pessimistic usage assumptions.

My understanding was NP is when you test and rebuild the graph over and over which doesn't need to happen if you isolate or fail

Don't allow the hard ones

Dependency managers tend to just block a huge category of situations that effectively eliminate the entire NP hard space

Type systems similarly are explicitly cordoned off

The trick isn't "do it anyway" beyond you kind of definitionly need to, it is to acknowledge the general problem is "impossible" so either do your best or start eliminating the impossible

The closest is linear types but even then drop isn't an effect but also a function you can call to allow not continuing the references

Most people generally fundamentally know what 30 means in their unit but might have a harder time with 303 (or 272)

No one says 6 even though it has a very reasonable information density for conversations. It is either a relative year or a two digit one.

(There is a reason it is common to drop the century when talking about years, humans are less skilled at numbers over 100)

And I know temperatures in Fahrenheit go higher but it is common to refer to Phoenix as "over 100" even when it's high can peak over 120.

I would personally categorize it as as subsidized not paid for since the lawyers get nothing if they fail which is a meaningful cost.

None of this is to say I support the current system. Class action lawsuits are now designed to get settlements that save the company targeted millions or more compared to the actual damage agreed to.

And giving the lawyers millions when each litigant is lucky to get $20 is not reasonable.

"The next purchase I make will be through X to avoid having to search for a new retailer"

Notepad++ and similar having forever tabs you don't have to explicitly close is cool but I ran programs like that when I wanted that...

To be clear I only know this because I was totally going to swap to a projector once I bought a place only to realize they don't work well during the day.

Projectors cannot handle ambient light without being a fire hazard.

You can't destroy emails because they law says those are evidence.

Firing people to bet against a downturn is self fulfilling. Firing people to bet for a thing everyone says is good isn't.

Your example is fabricated since the justice department didn't even bring forward a specific crime they believe was committed here.

If they charged him with a crime and had evidence his device had evidence of that crime (even if in reality it didn't) that would be a more interesting question.

But again where is the crime?

Most previous court cases involving encrypted devices have required substantial proof that the encrypted device contained incriminating evidence. To be clear "you sent this illegal thing from your house" levels of evidence.

It mostly seems inept, if you are going to push to expand your powers you do it on strong cases where you know what happened. Doing it on weak cases like this gives a judge an opportunity to shut down that without giving you a chance of a meaningful conviction and without that you won't get any benefits...