If you have options there’s no good reason to stay.

Are you kidding? Subversion had a notoriously awful way of handling merges, which was a huge driver of people onto Git as soon as it appeared. You truly had to have been there to believe it, but in all but the simplest of merge scenarios, declaring branch bankruptcy and manually moving things back into the target branch by hand was your only real option. Early to mid 2000s, the most common team branching strategy I saw with subversion was "there's only one branch and everybody does all the development in it because god help you if you try to put it back together after branching for something".

It wasn't until well after the momentum was clearly in Git's favour and a huge chunk of the user base was gone that Subversion finally fixed it to not be complete dogshit.

Apple has literally never posted “here’s a ream of benchmarks vs the Dell XPS XYZ and HP modelnumbersneeze738462” — pretending this is indicative of some grand conspiracy to hide performance deficiencies of these new M2 models the way GP is, is silly.

Is it still all that fundamentally different? All of the RDNA parts are tile-based renderers (I think even the Vega series GCN parts made that switch?)

Why would I want to argue that? It certainty doesn’t describe the million identical ChatGPT circlejerks that rocket to the front page without getting flagged out of existence.

This NFT story was no less tech adjacent than them, and no less vapid and inane than them, but it had the appearance of being embarrassing for a certain hyperpartisan political segment, so it was flagged by a bunch of those supporters, and you in your infinite fecklessness are sitting here back-inventing justifications for this flag based on “well no I’m sure all those flags were about the low intellectual quality of the article” as if 97% of the front page wasn’t idiotic pablum aimed at potted plants.

It’s hard to take seriously the suggestion that you’re too stupid to realize those flags weren’t politically motivated and not just a comment on its indistinguishable-from-any-other-garbage-that-gets-popular quality.

Incredibly embarrassing statement for someone moderating this place to be making.

Your information is pretty out of date.

People are acting like this graph they saw for the first time today means that Rust is running at sub-Ruby speeds, when even with these excess copies we already know, and have known for years how rust programs have been performing in real life.

That there is room for improvement here does not mean that the status quo was not already excellent.

It seems crazy to you because your spectacular misdescription of the problem is simply incorrect.

>> Does this mean Rust is slower than C++?

> No. You can always write your Rust code carefully to avoid copies. Besides, all of this only comes out to a small percentage of the total instruction count. That being said, it's something we should fix, and which I'm working on.

TFA extensively demonstrates that they’re a far, far behind Apple’s 2 year old M1 silicon in efficiency.

This is the single bizarrest and most literally inaccurate use of the phrase “single-handedly” I have ever seen.