I think this is enviable with low level languages. You simply can't abstract away as many things.

What's wrong with man ascii?

Keil, of course.

Async rust might suck, compared to async in higher level languages, but for someone comming from C, async rust simplifies a lot of stuff. It often feels like a lot of criticisms of rust boils down to the fact that rist was sold to both people using low and high level languages. I don't doubt that async rust is shit when all you want is a faster typescript.

Edit: I certainly also have my criticisms of rust and its async implementation, and I think some of the authors concerns are valid, it was just an observation about the tension between the needs of the two groups of users.

Why would I, an embedded developer working on devices with at most a couple of mb of flash, need to learn SQL?

I usually use Json5. It's JSON, but with all the weird quirks fixed (comments added, you can use hex numbers, you can have trailing commas etc.)

Sadly, this does not seem to be the norm in my experience. I have not attemped to adding this myself, but I wanted to ask: are there any hurdles or other good reasons to not just adding this to every create? Why isn't it the default?

Is that always suppose to be shown? My counter example (the one that prompted this thread) is embassy_executor::Executor. When looking in the docs i dont see anywhere that its locked behind a feature flag, you have to look in the source

What have you done to harden Firefox? And what exactly are you trying to view?

Sure, you can autogenerated js bindings, but as soon as you need to start debugging or optimizing you need to understand the js that was generated for you.

I think the truth is that not only can't WASM manipulate the DOM, but javascript was build to manipulate the DOM and has been moulded around this purpose. Secondly, if you want to use WASM from another programming language, that is just another language you need to learn on top of javascript, because we are not at a stage where we can replace javascript (because of the DOM). Fo most it's more cost effective to just optimize their javascript code instead of adding another layer to the tech stack.

I'm saying that appears conscious and is conscious could very well be the same thing, we don't know, so in this imaginary world, I would not trust anyone who told me "don't worry, you can torture them, they are not actually conscious".

No. I'm very certain that my Roomba is not conscious. But If we can't tell whether or not these people are conscious or not, then I don't think it's right to have this power over them. A better parallel than a Roomba would be an animal.

I think it matters a great deal! I would like to believe that not only would I not use such a system, I would actively fight to have it made illegal.

I think most applications store it in plain text, but makes sure the file is only readable by the current user. This way, we rely on the protection of the OS, instead of doing it ourselves. (I'm not a desktop app developer, so I might be completely wrong, but I think this is what e.g. Firefox does).

How do you test that? How do you know that people around you actually have conscious and not just seem to have? If you can't experience anything, how do you fake conscious? And is this fake conscious really any less real than ours? I think anything that resembles conscious well enough to fool people could be argued to be real, even if it's different to ours.

What's the difference seeming conscious and being conscious?

Nope. Never heard of it.

I'm from Europe i literal don't know anyone who uses WhatsApp.

One of C's main painpoints is that development is slow. I work in embedded and there people usually use python or another scripting language along c, to handle tasks where performance and memory footprint os not an issue and you just want to build something, and then save c for when you really need it.