calcopiritus

joined 1 year ago
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I didn't answer your "request" because that has nothing to do with what I originally said.

If I wanted to get into an hours long conversation about gender I would've said something completely different. Got better things to waste my time on.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

If other opinions matter, then it is not an irrelevant question. Since it prompts people to tell their opinions.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (5 children)

If the question is so irrelevant, why do you even try to answer it in the same comment? Not only answering it, but also making it a fact. As if your opinion is the only one that matters and suddenly it's irrelevant when there's a different opinion.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

You can just use an unsafe block though. Or make a thin wrapper that is just safe functions that inside just have an unsafe block with the C ABI function.

Even if rust had a stable ABI, you would still need that unsafe block.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I'm not so sure that dynamic libraries always reduces the size. Specially with libraries that are linked by a single binary.

With static libraries, you can conditionally compile only the features you're gonna use. With dynamic libraries, however, the whole library must be compiled.

EDIT: just to clarify, I'm not saying that static libraries result always in less size. I'm saying that it's not a black and white issue.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Napoleon was french, not American.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago

Road rules exist for a reason. The reason that it's illegal to pass someone on the right lane is that they might turn right without seeing you.

If you're in a bike on the road you should be as careful as you can, since you're a small thing surrounded by heavy giant machines. And those in the cars are mostly only paying attention to other cars.

Cars that are in the rightmost lane don't expect anything to be at their right, since they are already the rightmost, so they are looking at the traffic coming from their left when turning right, they don't look at what's right of them, since there are no cars coming from that direction.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

If they didn't vote in 2024, that's because they saw trump and said "yes, this is fine". If they didn't, they would've voted.

Even if they didn't like Kamala, they would've voted for her if they didn't think a trump presidency was acceptable.

Anything more positive for trump than "trump's presidency is not acceptable" means that America is not "better than this".

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

I think you completely missed the point.

The problem is not that the sign exists, the problem is that people don't see nothing wrong with it.

If you were a Jew, how would you feel if you saw Nazi flags on a men's rights protest? Would you feel safe knowing that men a Nazi is safe around men? (Which probably means many of those men are nazis/nazi sympathizers themselves.).

That's how men feel when they see sexist messages in feminist protests go uncontested.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

They should've looked at their star software product: Microsoft access.

Now presenting: Access Intelligence

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

You can't be that blind. At pretty much every women's rights protest there is at least someone with a sign up that reads something like "All men are rapists". Sure, the protest might not be about that. Sure, not everyone agrees with that kind of statements. But there's not much opposition either, so that kind of sexist message appears all the time in the news. Furthermore, those spewing sexist bullshit call themselves "feminists", so young men think that feminism is like that, and now they hate feminism too.

EDIT: just as an example, right after writing this comment I saw this other one: https://lemmy.world/comment/13322514 it's impossible to time it better.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Hardware signing stuff is not a real solution. It's security through obscurity.

If someone has access to the hardware, they technically have access to the private key that the hardware uses to sign things.

A determined malicious actor could take that key and sign whatever they want to.

 

I want to do basically this:

struct MyStruct < T> {
    data: T
}

impl < T> for MyStruct < T> {
    fn foo() {
        println!("Generic")
    }
}

impl for MyStruct < u32> {
    fn foo() {
        println!("u32")
    }
}

I have tried doing

impl < T: !u32> for MyStruct < T> {
    ...
}

But it doesn't seem to work. I've also tried various things with traits but none of them seem to work. Is this even possible?

EDIT: Fixed formatting

view more: next ›