perfect 80/20.
as in, 80% fully agree, 20% what a retard.

Where does one even start ?

In any rust project, you start with API docs, and the examples folder if one exists. Just make sure the examples belong to the current version you will depend on, not the master/main branch. The link above is from v0.13.1 for example.

Didn’t click on your links. But LEA does this move against any network that may offer anonymization. Don’t use Tor hidden services. Don’t go near I2P. Stay away from Freenet…etc. This even includes any platform that is seen as not fully under control, like Telegram at some point.

In its essence, this move is no different from “Don’t go near Lemmy because it’s a Putin-supporting communist platform filled with evil state agents”.

Does any network that may offer anonymization (even if misleadingly) attract undesirable people, possibly including flat out criminals? Yes.

Should everyone stay away from all of them because of that? That’s up to each individual to decide, preferably after seeing for themselves.

But parroting “think of the children” talking points against individual networks points to either intellectual deficiency, high susceptibility to consent-manufacturing propaganda, or some less innocent explanations.

Apologies if I was presumptions and/or my tone was too aggressive.

Quibbling at No Moderation = Bad usually refers to central moderation where “someone” decides for others what they can and can’t see without them having any say in the matter.

Bad moderation is an experienced problem at a much larger scale. It in fact was one of the reasons why this very place even exists. And it was one of the reasons why “transparent moderation” was one of the celebrated features of Lemmy with its public Modlog, although “some” quickly started to dislike that and try to work around it, because power corrupts, and the modern power seeker knows how to moral grandstand while power grabbing.

All trust systems give the user the power, by either letting him/her be the sole moderator, or by letting him/her choose moderators (other users) and how much each one of them is trusted and how much weight their judgment carries, or by letting him/her configure more elaborate systems like WoT the way he/she likes.

Because there isn’t a solution.

This has been discussed and experimented with to death where such networks existed for a long time. Just because you never heard of them or even knew they exist doesn’t mean that they don’t.

See Freenet/Hyphanet and the three approaches (local trust, shared user trust lists, web of trust) if you want to learn something. The second one worked out the best from a performance and scalability point of view compared to the third.

Not only is IPFS not built on solid foundations, offered nothing new to the table, and is generally bad at data retention, but the “opt-in seeding” model was always a step backwards and not a good match for apps like plebbit.

The anonymous distributes filesystem model (a la Freenet/Hyphanet) where each file segment is anonymously and randomly “inserted” into the distributed filesystem is the way to go. This fixes the “seeder power” problem, as undesirable but popular content can stay highly available automatically, and unpopular but desirable content can be re-inserted/healed periodically by healers (seeders). Only both unpopular and undesirable content may fizzle out of the network, but that can only happen in the context of messaging apps/platforms if 0 people tried pull and 0 people tried to reinsert the content in question over a long period of time.

Generally yes, unless it’s the original source of a story.
e-celeb content and news aggregators are never the original source of a story.

That some can and already do that on the video sites they already browse.

People like shorts too, but that doesn’t mean Lemmy should be infested with such content.

We went from spam “news sites” to spam videos. Maybe an “original source” policy should be applied by moderators!

This applies to both hare and on [email protected]

Doubly linked list is one of std’s collections. And safety in Rust is built on top of unsafely, because there is no way around that.

Did you try to actually look up literally anything before asking?! Because simply checking out std::collections docs would have given you some answers.

^{Who memory-holed 2021 an why❔😉}

They talk too much. But almost none of them actually code or know how to at a good level.

We have someone just like that here.

Now that others got all the technicalities out of the way, maybe ChromeOS/ChromiumOS would be something along the lines of what you’re looking for? not that anyone should choose to daily-drive it.

most Rust developers

survey participants != all rust developers

In fact, there is no reason for experienced Rust developers to participate in such surveys at all. I don’t.

Hell, the way the survey results are covered (not just here) tells me that maybe we should push for it to never be done (officially) ever again.

That’s exactly the communicated meaning I was concerned an oblivious reader might get. You can use an updated Rust compiler 10 years in the future while your crate is still on 2015/2018/2021 edition. Editions are NOT software versions.

I might expect the Rust ecosystem to adopt these new features.

This again points to you maybe not understanding how editions work, or maybe I’m just reading it wrong again. But you “upgrading” has no effect on your dependencies, and vise versa (except indirectly if MSRV is a factor as another user mentioned).

Just upgraded

Weird wording!
Maybe it’s just me, but this may give the impression that it’s something that is strictly needed, or will provide any immediate improvement, which is not the case, unless you’re still actively working on these projects and plan to use/depend on features/behaviors required by the new edition.

In case the wording tripped anyone, generators (blocks and functions) have been available for a while as an unstable feature.

This works (playground):

#![feature(gen_blocks)]

gen fn gfn() -> i32 {
    for i in 1..=10 {
        yield i;
    }
}

fn gblock() -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> {
    gen {
        for i in 1..=10 {
            yield i;
        }
    }
}

fn main() {
    for i in gfn() {
        println!("{i} from gfn()");
    }
    for i in gblock() {
        println!("{i} from gblock()");
    }
}

Note that the block-in-fn version works better at this moment (from a developer’s PoV) because rust-analyzer currently treats gfn() as an i32 value. But the block-in-fn pattern works perfectly already.

Hey, posting from Coping People’s Party is cheating.

/mj Let’s keep the language used in your description to the chans. It’s a jerking style violation anyway.

While you missed the mark here since typst has all the important stuff open (I wouldn’t use the web interface even if it was free/open source), I appreciate that you’re keeping an eye open.

If you were in r*ddit’s rust community a few years ago, you probably would have been banned, just like me😄

A blog post from M$ mentioning Rust with zero code

=> straight to the top

A news article regurgitating the same thing a week later

=> straight to the top

Another news article two weeks later regurgitating the same thing, possibly with the addition of a random tweet from some M$ dev

=> straight to the top

Anyone not sucking nu-M$'s ****

=> banished to the bottom, or worse.

Things got so silly to the point where I made this jerk post (archive link) about one of these silly posts.