In contexts like this, using a car is perceived as a right - restricting usage doesn't make people think "I'll take the chance to use the bike", rather "How the f*ck do I get there now?".

Not a direct answer, but the article reports the maximum exceeding amount:

> Maximum concentrations reached 351 mg/kg, dramatically exceeding the 10 mg/kg limit originally proposed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

> Bold claim. From my gut feeling this must be incorrect; I don't seem to get the same amount of crashes using chromium-based browsers such as thorium.

That's a misinterpretation. The finding refers to the composition of crashes, not the overall crash rate (which is not reported by the post). Brought to the extreme, there may have been 10 (reported) crashes in history of Firefox, and 1 due to faulty hardware, and the statement would still be correct.

Copy protections nowadays are actually extremely complex - just look at Denuvo and VMProtect. I presume that nowadays there are less copy protection schemes because producing a resilient one is too complex for small developer teams.

Carabinieri are actually military-status police force in Italy, which is a different setup from the FBI in the US.

Calling them the Italian FBI, is ironically quite funny, because in Italy they’re the butt of a lot of jokes - "carabiniere" is a common stand-in for "someone dumb".

> Gimp is an ugly beast with a bad name. Nobody's using that unless they're a Linux nerd.

It depends on the use case. The vast majority of computer users nowadays use only the browser and an office suite. Even email clients are a thing of the past.

It's true that Gimp doesn't have a great UX, but who spends time photoretouching on the computer, when one can do it in a few seconds on the phone?

In general, and it applies to the referenced article, programming with a high level of control over the implementation is complex, and there's no way around it. This article explains the concept: https://matklad.github.io/2023/01/26/rusts-ugly-syntax.html.

When it comes to programming in languages and frameworks I'm familiar with, there is virtually no increase in terms of speed (I may use it for double checks), however, it may still help me discover concepts I didn't know.

When it comes to areas I'm not familiar with:

- most of the time, the increase is substantial, for example when I need a targeted knowledge (e.g. finding few APIs in giant libraries), or when I need to understand an existing solution - in some cases, I waste a lot of time, when the LLM hallucinates a solution that doesn't make sense - in some other cases, I do jobs that otherwise I wouldn't have done at all

I stress two aspects:

1. it's crucial IMO to treat LLMs as a learning tool before a productivity one, that is, to still learn from its output, rather than just call it a day once "it works"

2. days of later fixing can save hours of upfront checking. or the reverse, whatever one prefers :)

I also find refactorings considerably harder in a declarative language, since configurations have a rigid structure.

> Supports hundreds of AI models via Providers [...] no AI related code is even loaded until you configure an AI provider.

This fork is pretty much useless.

After having worked with gradual typing, unless the application is very disciplined, IMO automated testing is not enough to document the code, as Ruby makes it very easy to use flexible data structures which very easily become messy.

It depends on the purpose. The reference IDE is intended to produce real-world programs (it includes tools for sprites, music etc.), while high level language compilers are mostly academic, as they're not performant enough.

> You could do basically everything that you could do in languages like C/C++

As long as there is some form of memory access, any language can do basically everything that one can do in C/C++, but this doesn't make much sense.

Uh? Number 2 in CWE is an out-of-bounds write, and the same vulnerability is number 1 in the KEV list.

It is correct that the hype is past its peak, however, the TIOBE trend (if one wants to use that) is actually steadily increasing.

> There is still some development in linux

"Some development" is a miscarachterization - the official addition to the Linux kernel itself is a very big deal, and its adoption is increasing and will continue to do so.

I think that Rust has found its niche in safe low-level programming, and it will slowly have an increasingly dominant role in (although the ceiling of this area is certainly limited in the global landscape).