This will finally be the year of the Wayland desktop!

Which, in turn, is a consequence of the spin-statistics theorem.

As for why the spin-statistics theorem is true, the answer is that, in a sense, we do not really know. This is because, although we have rigorous mathematical proofs that it is true, they rely on arguments that are very technical in nature, so they provide no real intuitive insight into why the theorem is true. (This theorem is actually really notorious for this; people have been trying for a long time to improve on the situation, but have yet to succeed in coming up with a satisfactory elementary proof of it.)

Yeah, I really enjoyed the central conceit of that movie, which is that it is really fun to watch Tom Cruise die over and over again.

After buying a portal directly into the vacuum of space to help him clean his house, Larry does not get around to using it in time for Christmas, so instead he hangs lights on it to distract people from the dust.

The Software Publishers Association has finally won:

It is no longer possible to copy that floppy. :-(

Doesn’t language editions solve that problem? (I am not a Rust expert so please correct me if I am wrong.)

All of their children will die; it is only a matter of when.

Put another way: every time a parent gives birth, they are bestowing the irrevocable gift of one day experiencing dying to their child.

I can be glad that the Union won the U.S. Civil War and and ended slavery yet still consider it to be war crimes that they deliberately attacked civilians as part of Sherman’s March; no logic had been violated there.

The problem with this reasoning is that instability, whether as the result of undermining governments or regional wars, has unpredictable outcomes. For example, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran seemed like a great idea to those in power in the U.S. at the time when we disagreed with Iran’s policies, but this decision turned around to bite us when that got overturned. So it is not in our material interests to promote instability, and I think that the current administration knows this, so to the extent it is supporting Israel with effectively no conditions on its actions I think that it is behaving irrationally rather than maliciously.

No dominant organisation in the world like the US state would give a significant amount of money(like it does for Israel) for something that doesn’t serve their material interests, namely the perpetuation and/or increase of their power and influence.

I disagree with the notion that dominant organizations would never give significant of money away in a manner contrary to their material interests. If anything, the opposite is true: if you are dominant, then you have more freedom to get away with acting against your material interests (intentionally or not).

I think that our treatment of Israel is an example of this. All of the money we have been throwing at them does not buy anything at all, since the Israeli government does not even seem to be that grateful for it but just expects it as a matter of course. They seem hell-bent on bringing the entire region into a war that would pull us in and cause a ton of damage to our material interests, and we have barely any ability to stop them from doing this. Worst, this situation is entirely avoidable because we could, at the very least, put strings on our military aid and then enforce them, rather than just giving Israel whatever it wants and ignoring whenever it crosses any of our supposed lines.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing that our material interests are the only reason to care about what is happening or to criticize our government’s actions, I am just saying that it makes no sense to just take as given that a dominant organization will always act in its own best material interests in this way.

Repeating my other reply verbatim yet again as you keep copying and pasting the same exact comment:

First, to be clear, this isn’t so much “press” as a blog entry. Second, there are only so many mentions of “rust cultists” and “my rust” I can read in a blog before losing interest.

Repeating my other reply verbatim as you just did the same:

First, to be clear, this isn’t so much “press” as a blog entry. Second, there are only so many mentions of “rust cultists” and “my rust” I can read in a blog before losing interest.

First, to be clear, this isn’t so much “press” as a blog entry. Second, there are only so many mentions of “rust cultists” and “my rust” I can read in a blog before losing interest.

Yes, and that is my point: unless you wearing a seat belt somehow made the accident more likely to happen, it really doesn’t seem like manslaughter applies here.

According to this page, you could attempt to argue “lack of causation” if there was no connection between you not wearing a seat belt and your passenger getting killed.

I think you meant to say:

I knew it, no comments yet, everyone’s a sheep

Choosing to have a child later on generally has fewer negative consequences than unchoosing a child you have already had.

Have you really not heard of it? It is a new architecture that is a bit better than x64_64.

All of these options are still better than spending full price for a pair of jeans that were lovingly crafted to start with holes in them!

No, it will be too busy making paperclips to even notice us, except as a nuisance getting in the way of it making paperclips that needs to be eliminated.