Note that C's tools for this like Valgrind, instrumented allocators and LLVM sanitizers work with Rust too. Investment in catching these in C generally helps unsafe Rust too, but Rust also has Miri, and a much better baseline for static analysis.

Gas has a 6-month shelf-life, and is attached to a whole geopolitically volatile military-industrial complex. Meanwhile an EV + solar can be actually self-sufficient and last for a decade or two. A realistic Mad Max would have been EV battles over solar panels.

It's something that improves almost overnight - your situation can change from being stuck without a place to charge to having it completely solved. All it needs is chargers installed where you need them.

The "what about condos with no driveway" problem seems hard only because you're trying to project a suburban solution to an urban environment, which makes no sense regardless of EVs.

You don't need a driveway and a solar panel per person, you just need plugs wherever cars stay parked. As EV adoption increases, it's less of a niche need and more of how parking works. There are curb-side chargers. Lamp post chargers.

Charging doesn't have to be done overnight either. There are destination chargers at supermarkets, malls, gyms, office centers.

An EV driven in a city needs to be DC charged for ~20 minutes once a ~week. This is pretty easy to fit in a weekly routine of a car-dependent person, where infrastructure exists.

The infrastructure exists where it breaks through the chicken-egg problem. Nobody will roll out 500 charging plugs in a parking garage if there are only handful of regular EV users, and people won't buy EVs when their town has only one public charger (broken).

But once there's the critical mass, the infrastructure gets used, pays for itself. You get choices and competition instead of putting up with your only crappy option.

For that reason I expect EU to get momentum that US won't. EU has thrown money at the problem, and in some cities it's already very good, close to being a completely solved problem, while the US is a decade behind and has ideological objections against catching up.

What's really happening is Apple unilaterally withholding features while making vague noises about regulation as bargaining chips in talks with EU regulators where Apple is trying to weasel out of punishment for breaking anti-monopoly laws.

> Can't say I've tried Rust

...

Well, I've actually tried both. The result is similar to what happens when humans code: for small programs the simplicity and terseness of Python helps, but in large programs that accumulate many more invariants that have to be upheld, strictness of Rust becomes an advantage, because it can catch subtler issues with ownership, lifetimes, thread safety.

Although ownership and lifetimes seem like a Rust-specific chore, they're used in APIs to represent all kinds of temporary and single-use objects, so ownership errors are often symptoms of logic bugs that would exist in C++ and even Python, like an event handler callback assuming the event will fire only once when it can fire n times.

You don't see as much improvement with C++, because C++ requires the programmer to get these things correctly, instead of correcting the programmer.

The issue isn't in having a representation for 0 photons, but about maximizing information stored in a byte. Ideally you shouldn't be underutilizing the byte value 0, nor add bias to data that should have been assigned to the 0th bucket, regardless of what it represents (you could have a color space that goes from bright to super bright, and still want to ensure that every byte represents equal chunk of your brightness range).

You haven't grasped the fact that the choice isn't obvious, and has subtle trade-offs.

If you don't believe the author, check the other posts he references.

The job has changed from a craft to operating an unreliable machine.

Instead of satisfaction of solving challenging problems with your own skill and creativity, you babysit a text extruder and slog through mistakes in its generated output.

Arguably this may make software cheaper to make and accessible to non-programmers, but for people who liked their job it's like being demoted from a restaurant chef to a microwave button pusher.

The anti-regulation arguments aren't framed as "market competition is bad", but rather "the market will sort itself out without intervention" and "let companies do whatever they want to avoid killing innovation".

Which is another problem with the article: it doesn't clearly define what counts as having the "color". The problematic dead-end situation exists in JS, but languages with cross-thread communication can work around it.

People can't memorize as much information, and can't manually reproduce the works as quickly. There's a natural limit to how much damage a person can do without help of machines. That's why it's legal to fart where industrial-scale sewage outlets are not allowed.

Second, laws are for people. Laws don't have to treat machines the same. People have needs for things like freedom of artistic expression, participation in a shared culture, and machines don't. Copyright is a compromise that tries to balance needs of people, and stops making sense when the same compromises are done for machines that don't have these needs.

PHEV batteries are discharged at higher rate (C) while a BEV can spread the load across many more modules. EV range of PHEV is so small that the battery gets fully cycled daily, while a BEV with similar commute distances and charging can easily keep batteries at a more comfortable state of charge.

The recycling thing doesn't make sense to me. For getting raw materials back the difficulty is the same (get the cells out and grind them), and having more cells per pack should amortize labor cost better.

BEV batteries aren't recycled at scale yet, because there aren't many to recycle. They're easier to reuse for grid storage, since BEV packs already have many modules hooked up to a single BMS.

So this sounds more like Toyota is just supply constrained on batteries.

It allowed it to be an experiment that could have been quickly rolled out without a risk of forever lingering as a back-compat requirement for browsers.