This isn't particular of Rust. Nim also forces you to deal with all possible branches of a case statement. I'm pretty sure other languages do so as well.
On the other hand, it's not a very advanced type level feature either to insist on total functions. I'm sure Rust's type system goes a lot further in enforcing a good level of type soundness.
No, it is basic. If you have a sum type, and you have no defined behaviour for one of the terms of the sum type, your code is not type-safe and a language that aspires to "basic type safety stuff" should at least issue some kind of error about it. In a putatively statically-typed language (ie one that does type checking at compile time), you'd expect that error to happen at compile time.
JS has this too in TS, so I’m pretty sure the perception among users of typed languages is that this is a basic part of what type systems do. What does this have to do with FP?
You already have to disconnect form the network to be able to use the "offline account" option in the installer (last I checked, which was like a couple of months ago).
So this has been going on for a while.
Edit (merge the other comment I deleted):
To clarify, this was a Home Edition. I understand that the Pro edition doesn't behave this way.
Neither you or your parent is incorrect; this behavior is variable. I setup 8 new win10 boxes last week, 2 of them (HP, the others were Dell) required pulling a lan cable to get to the local account setup. I didn't have time to check details to see what was different (I'm not really IT, but small company/many hats) but the local account option didn't appear until the internet was disconnected.
Windows 10 Pro, I've installed it about 40 times or more. Domain Join is the option to create a local account. It works, I do it every install, while connected to network.
I last installed Win10 a few months ago and it was not, until I unplugged the Ethernet cable and went back a couple steps to get it to re-assess things.
Installed Windows 10 Home a few weeks, poked around for 5 minutes searching for an offline option until I gave up. I know it used to be there but they have removed it.
I think it's possible in professional edition but you have to be offline on home edition. (I messed up and installed pro for a home key, so I did it back to back with same ISO)
Facebook was not "blocked" - they voluntarily halted the rollout of the feature themselves. NOBODY told them to do this.
Reading between the lines, someone at Facebook's legal department was asleep at the wheel and forgot to provide the authorities with the required documentation. The DPC nudged them a bit and Facebook hit the panic button.
> Facebook was not "blocked" - they voluntarily halted the rollout of the feature themselves. NOBODY told them to do this.
It sure sounds like the DPC told them to:
> the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) — using inspection and document seizure powers set out in Section 130 of the country’s Data Protection Act — had sent agents to Facebook’s Dublin office seeking documentation that Facebook had failed to provide.
That's like saying that I voluntarily left someone's premises after the police told me to leave before I got arrested for tresspassing.
That's how the EU works. You get a warning/advisory, and then you're expected to do the right thing.
If they hadn't done this voluntarily, THEN they would have been fined.
We try to regulate before it goes wrong, instead of running after them. It works better that way.
But if you want to believe that FB voluntarily halted the rollout of the feature, for no other reason that they believed it fell short of privacy guarantees ... Yeah no. FB couldn't give a shit about that, without external motivation.
The European Union is already planning to introduce a temporary ban on facial recognition in public spaces - PRECISELY because the technology is being rolled out throughout European cities without first assessing the impact on rights such as privacy.
The story is about a leaked draft of a plan to introduce the same technology on the parliament itself - which would be inconsistent with the previous point.
> The story is about a leaked draft of a plan to introduce the same technology on the parliament itself
I did, and that's what I mean. They don't want it in the parliament and yet the subway station I use every day has facial recognition system in place, there is even a sign that says "it's for your safety". I'll believe in a ban when they'll take it down.
"The European commission is expected to announce the ban this month, covering the use of the technology in stations, stadiums and shopping centres and lasting three to five years, to allow regulators time to assess the impact of the fast-developing technology."
is confusing you?
If you had followed the links, you'd know that there is a draft for the ban circulating since at least early January, and is due to come into effect sometime in February.
Again: this is being rushed through precisely because of behaviors such as the one you describe.
I fail to understand what there is to be outraged about here. Your exact complaint is in the process of being addressed (assuming you live in the EU).
I get the impression he is saying it would have never been an issue for them if it wasn't ever going to be implemented at parliament specifically. It was not an issue to use it on every body else. If they could get away with it they would probably ban it from being used on themselves and continue to implement it everywhere else.
Then proceed to intermediate and advanced. There are a TON of citations for your perusal. After your are done with that, the comments have some additional insights.
Have fun. This is quite the rabbit hole to dive into.
I've only toyed with D a bit. IMHO, if you come from a typical OO programming language background (which to me includes C++, Java, Python...), the majority of D will immediately feel familiar, and to a great extent, obvious.
The syntax is familiar and the ideas are familiar. You don't have to learn anything new (not immediately anyway) like you do in Rust (where you basically need to learn EVERYTHING new).
Where this idyllic scenario starts falling apart with when you start actually using it for anything half-serious. Some of the bits feel extremely unintuitive and the documentation is difficult to navigate. There are few examples and the tutorial is a bit spartan. For example, I needed a deque-like container (double-ended queue), but it took me ages to figure out that a) the language actually has one and b) how to use the bloody thing.
There is also a bit of schizophrenia going on, with the "new" ideas and the "old" ideas clashing in some places. For example, they claim that you can run D without a GC (the new), but apparently a good chunk of the stdlib requires the GC (the old), so you're stuck.
I find this all to be unfortunate because D, to me, feels like it could be a better, saner C++.
> There is also a bit of schizophrenia going on, with the "new" ideas and the "old" ideas clashing in some places. For example, they claim that you can run D without a GC (the new), but apparently a good chunk of the stdlib requires the GC (the old), so you're stuck.
AFAIK this is somewhat intentional; they don't want to make any hard compatibility breaks, so there's a long deprecation period for any 'old' idea. There's also a lack of manpower to renovate libraries; e.g. there's no good xml library.
Regarding GC, it's IMO not a huge problem. The GC is really not a problem for most applications, and for those where it is, you can simply avoid GC allocations in inner loops (GC only runs when you allocate from it).
> they claim that you can run D without a GC (the new), but apparently a good chunk of the stdlib requires the GC (the old), so you're stuck.
The intent isn't to turn off the GC completely (though GC-averse folks assume that it is). The `@nogc` function attribute is intended to be applied where you need it. Then you can guarantee that in that function's call stack, no language features that require the GC will be used.
The standard library has been retrofitted to eliminate use of the GC where it isn't needed and provide alternatives where possible (such as a function that takes a buffer as an argument alongside one that allocates). There may still be places where it can be trimmed down even more, but it will never be fully `@nogc` compatible.
D is meant to be used with the GC, but provides the means to avoid allocations, turn collections on/off (`GC.disable/enable`) and command line options for profiling GC usage and affecting its behavior. Anyone who wants to turn off the GC completely is going beyond the primary intended use case and is of course going to run into bumps with the standard library. Much of it is still usable, though.
IMHO, Logitech has (or is it had?) pretty outstanding hardware. I had two RumblePad 2 (the original ones) that survived over 10 years of abuse (buttone mashing, dropping, rage due to losing to my brother 30 times in a row in fighting games). Still the best gamepads I've ever used.
This is the old "announce an inquiry" ploy. This should be familiar to anyone who has watched "Yes, Minister" - or has paid any attention at all to anything ever made in public.
Basically, someone "blows the whistle" and suddenly something that should have gone relatively under the radar blows up on your face. People start asking a lot of difficult questions and making a lot of noise.
So what do you do? You announce a private inquiry (or, to put it in ICANN's terms "We will thoughtfully and thoroughly evaluate the proposed acquisition to ensure that the .ORG registry remains secure, reliable, and stable.").
The point of the inquiry isn't to find out any new facts or correct any problems - it's to stall until this goes out of the public eye (people have short attention spans, and we are in the Holiday season which always helps with "forgetting"), to clear up their names of any wrongdoing (because they reviewed everything thoroughly and found no cause for concern) and to bury the evidence (because some of it will be "accidentally" misplaced into a shredder).
In a month or so, a report will come out saying that there is some cause for concern, but that the danger is either overblown or that their hands are tied so nothing can be done due to this or that circumstance (legal, financial, etc). It will come with a stern paragraph warning that internal guidelines (you know, the ones the public can't see) must be reviewed sometime in the near future (i.e., around the year 2050) to prevent this from happening again, but it will conclude that everyone did their due diligence properly and we were all just victims of circumstances.
In short, better luck next time.
Why yes, people have called me a cynic, why do you ask?
Considering the (ex-)leadership of ICANN is behind both approving the sale and ethos capital, and effectively answer to nobody, I doubt they have much interest in genuine reform.
> For the record, Firefox has built-in anti tracker which is enabled by default and they do that on all platforms
Firefox's anti-tracking protection doesn't block google analytics by default. They only block "third party" cookies - which in practice translates as: Google's competition.
The fox knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it.
The above specifically shows you to make sure your site continues to function when Google Analytics is blocked by Firefox. I can't find any evidence that Firefox doesn't block Google Analytics.
Mainly 1st party but some features might use 3rd party.
--
For customers that are using Google Analytics' Display Advertiser features, such as remarketing, a third-party DoubleClick cookie is used in addition to the other cookies described in this document for just these features. For more information about this cookie, visit the Google Advertising Privacy FAQ.
This is just basic type safety stuff.