Why would you need the next sequential ID, rather than just a unique ID? You could have a serial column that uses per-shard preallocations like I was describing, and allocate the IDs for both records.

Same general benefit as coordinated disclosure, except it's a big game-theory problem where we're likely to eventually have sufficiently capable defectors.

- Pay in advance, before the product exists.

- Pay for early access that other people don't have. (Yes, in the absence of copyright, people could take the early-access version and share it with others. People already do this today, and that doesn't stop folks from continuing to be patrons anyway.)

- Accept that the 0.0..01% case of absurdly popular works will end up making less money than they otherwise might have. Small price to pay for having a rich and vibrant ecosystem of people sharing things and modifying things.

Some dog owners (to be clear, some, not by any means all, but it only takes some to affect other people's general perceptions) seem to think they are objectively correct and the people who do not want that are wrong. So it is not hard for me to imagine someone who finds themselves regularly having unpleasant interactions with dogs feeling like "dog owners should stop that from happening", rather than (as is sometimes the case) acting like there's something wrong with people who think it's a problem. Conversely, it is understandable how people who are close to and friendly with an animal all day will sometimes fail to have sufficient perspective-taking to realize that not everyone feels as they do.

I've personally never had the extremely unpleasant experience of having a large dog try to jump at me. I have on rare occasions had the experience of having a small dog run at my legs, and the owner not immediately treat that as a failure on their part, which was unpleasant. Fortunately, most of those have then had the "I'm so sorry" reaction, rather than reacting with indignance, but I've definitely encountered pet owners who projected indignance that you don't think their animal is a precious sweetums who can do no wrong.

Most pet owners are extremely reasonable people, and it's unfortunate that encounters with the exceptions to that can give people a poor impression.

But then, I've always preferred strongly typed over stringly typed.

But it wasn't something that could get introduced later, after all the broken content that already existed.

How long until someone uses AI to find an exploit in IDA and starts putting that in their malware, so that if you try to disassemble it you get pwned?

Rust as a language is capable of that. If you don't use the standard library then you can provide that functionality yourself. The standard library is trying to support it, without creating interfaces that are a massive pain to use.

For instance, it's easy for us to support `Vec::try_reserve`, and we do, but that's not trivial for users to use everywhere; it's error-prone, and it's easy to make a mistake and call a method that goes past your reservation. It's painful for us and for users to make `Vec::push` support this (and having a `try_` variant for every function), so we've been working on a better solution. One current possibility is to have a dedicated type for a Vec that has OOM handling, where `push` can return an error, so you know if you use that type you can never accidentally fail to handle OOM.