Meanwhile my experience has been that whenever there has been a performance issue severe enough to actually matter, it's often been the result of some kind of performance bug, not so much language, runtime, or even algorithm choices for that matter.

Hence whenever the topic of how to improve performance comes up, I always, always insist that we profile first.

  The old dragon Kalessin looked at him from one long, awful, golden eye. 
  There were ages beyond ages in the depths of that eye; the morning of the world was deep in it. 
  Though Arren did not look into it, he knew that it looked upon him with profound and mild hilarity."

I recently had a high-level meeting with Kalessin, a legacy leader in the space. (dragon emoji)

Looking into that golden eye was a masterclass in long-term vision. We’re talking ages of experience and "day one" mentality combined.

Even without direct eye contact, the synergy was real. There’s something to be said for leadership that approaches challenges with profound, mild hilarity.

Key takeaways: 1. Experience matters. 2. Perspective is everything. 3. Don't forget to find the joy in the grind.

#Leadership #Visionary #Legacy #GrowthMindset #Networking

If there was a point there the article did not make it easy to find.

Like, the ability to have multiple mut references to a struct as long as you access disjoint fields? That's amazing!!! A redo of Pin that actually composes with the rest of the language? That's pretty awesome too.

I think you're getting tied up because the the author is describing these features in a very formal way. But someone has to think about these things, especially if they are going to implement them.

Ultimately, these are features that will make Rust's safety features (which really, are Rust's reason for existing) more ergonomic and easier to use. That's the opposite of what you fear.

I would say it's even the thesis of the article. Joann Fabrics was a healthy company with customer demand and zero debt and was basically assassinated by a leveraged buyout.

Hopefully I am paraphrasing you correctly.

To clarify: without being able to simulate the universe from within the universe itself (i.e. needing to resort to some "outside" higher-fidelity universe), then the word "simulation" becomes meaningless.

We could just as easily refer to the whole thing (the inner "simulation" and the outer "simulation") as just being different "layers of abstraction" of the same universe, and drop the word "simulation" altogether. It would have the same ontology with less baggage.

"If there’s a cut in my wire’s insulation, the device won’t get enough voltage" doesn't follow from: "voltage is like water pressure in pipes"

So I don't really get your point.