EU opposes the Houthis because they are a horrifying slave state that distributes children as sex slaves to their troops.
EU opposes Russia because it is a horrifying fascist dictatorship that has repeatedly invaded it's neighbors, and constantly talks about it's historical claims to EU territory.
In the NA conflicts it's harder to draw such a clear line, because the conflicts typically have about 15 sides each, but the basic algorithm you can use is generally that EU tries very hard to pick sides based on morality, not geopolitical interests.
The EU and Macron welcomed the new Syrian president who is a former ISIS fighter in Europe. So much about morals when hundreds of French citizens were killed by ISIS in France.
The EU is like the US, it does business with vile and despicable people if it is in its own interest.
Those can be said for other economic partners that are being used so no. That's not it, that's just rhetoric for the masses. _You'll here the same thing tomorrow, after I say the complete opposite today._
Rust allows much more aggressive optimization of the reference types than C++. If you have a &T, the compiler can assume that it will not change over the entire lifetime of the reference, and reorder things even past things that a C++ compiler would never reorder across. This can easily bite you badly if you have the mental model of C/C++ pointers and step into unsafe land. There is a separate warning for:
unsafe {
mem::transmute::<&T, &mut T>(t) //takes a &T, returns a &mut T
}
in the compiler because this is something that a lot of people think might be safe (I'm running single-threaded, everything would be so much simpler if I just mutated this bit while no-one's looking), but is in fact pretty much always UB of the nasal demons type. But there are more ways to step on this problem than the most apparent way, and the compiler is not able to protect you from all of them.
To be clear, just declaring a block to be unsafe does not immediately do anything in Rust, it just allows a set of primitives that are not normally available, so it is possible to use unsafe judiciously without immediately stepping into a million landmines. You just have to be careful and ideally read the docs and the nomicon page for the operations you do, especially if they are very long.
Musk has benefited enormously from public contracts and policy, but all the questionable ones are in Tesla (and especially originally solarcity, but that got folded into Tesla).
The government contracts that made SpaceX were all open bid, where SpaceX bid an better solution than anything that any of the established companies did, at literally half the price. Falcon 9 was a massive gift to the US government, in that it drove the entire industry to halve the prices they extracted from the government. Dragon was just as good.
That they also built a profitable launch company out of it just highlights how much of an outlier SpaceX is. They sold the US government a dollar for fifty cents, made a profit doing it, and ended up driving half the rockets already flying out of the business.
Let's not also forget that NASDAQ changed the rules right before listing SpaceX... resulting in forced index fund procurement of sinking equity. Not sure how 'public policy' that is (arguably separate), but in reality global prime market listing rules are pretty high-significance effectively Federal or even international monetary policy. Well done Elon! Can't fault you for execution!
Yeah, this was pretty scum from my understanding. I think there are many things to criticize Elon about:
- Lack of free speech on X when it was a core part of messaging.
- DOGE / Data theft / corruption
- Election meddling
- narcissism
Just to name a few. I think telling the truth is important, which is why I have really been disappointed in Elon. It just irks me when we acknowledge a jr engineer is in "tech" and an "engineer". But we rewrite history to say Elon is a "non-technical business guy". People should admit it was an amazing immigrant story. A nerdy kid who was bullied all the time in apartheid south africa fled domestic abuse to Canada, eventually landing in the US with a scholarship to UPENN. He started 2 software companies that were amazingly successful and then went to give back via a passion for space, green energy and sustainable transportation. Then, because of various external and internal factors, he gradually became a serious villain hated by millions who embraced him. We don't have to invent some weird backstory that some relatively small stake in his estranged and abusive father had in a mine is the cornerstone of his success. If only I too was born in apartheid south africa to a wealthy but extremely fucked up family, I would be the richest person in America.
I guess it makes me mad because people don't value real success and overvalue fake success. We should want smart people to build companies and be successful. It is harder than it was in the past, but we can acknowledge that the American dream can still be possible, and should be celebrated. It doesn't matter that Taylor Swift's family were relatively well off. Sidenote: he was a wealth management advisor but people don't know what that is so they think he was Jamie Dimon. She still has an amazing story and we can acknowledge that. Yes, there was some privilege and luck, but she is extraordinary.
Tl;dr I guess I just wish we could be more honest and less likely to follow bullshit narratives. People are complex, you can acknowledge skill, hard work and the truth which will ultimately make valid criticisms go further because having a good honest reputation and dealing in good faith are important
Yes. Obviously, I wasn't implying he never benefitted from the government. It is just a wild retelling that he started a rocket company, solar company and car company to make huge amounts of money. Also, he was largely estranged from his abusive father since he emigrated to Canada at 17. I am sure he received help and money from his mother at points, but this idea he is some trust fund kid like Donald Trump. People really believe they would be as successful as him if they grew up being abused in an upper class family in apartheid South Africa. It doesn't make him a good person, and there is so much to criticism about him, that I think it actually detracts from legitimate criticism.
ESA is going to remain on the mission/payload side. ArianeSpace makes sense as a launch services provider handling everything that's not the rocket. ArianeGroup (the company that actually builds the rockets) will just become the French rocket company that will end up competing with the Italian and German ones.
Like most "small rocket companies" they'll come to the conclusion that they need bigger rockets to launch bigger payloads. Rockets that compete directly with Ariane 6. With some luck these will be reusable to, making Ariane 6 and ArianeSpace obsolete.
ESA and ArianeSpace will slowly but surely decay into obsolescence.
You seem to be confused about what organizations do what.
ESA neither launches or builds rockets. They are an end-user, and they own the launch infrastructure in Kourou. Both these roles will exist long after Ariane is gone.
Arianespace does not build rockets. It's a launch services provider, they purchase the rockets from other companies, handle all the logistics and manage the launchpad. It's in no way married to Ariane 6, and it has in the past and still does sell launches on multiple different rockets from different companies. There will be demand for these services even after Ariane the rocket is gone.
ArianeGroup is the company that builds Ariane 6. They are a complex co-owned project between Airbus and Safran, with workshare distributed between France and Germany. They make other things than the Ariane 6, notably the French SLBM. Eventually the Ariane 6 will go away, because it will be obsolete, but that will not necessarily mean that ArianeGroup will go under, because they have an another subsidiary called ArianeWorks developing a new rocket, called Themis.
If national governments can launch their own payloads without having to go through ESA or ArianeSpace it'll undermine the latter's position. They may even become competitors.
Italy accused the French-based ArianeSpace of deliberately taking launches away from the Italian-build Vega rocket in favor of the French-build Ariane rockets. They've now left ArianeSpace and are selling the rockets themselves and using ESA's infrastructure to launch them.
ESA funds and has awarded commercial contracts with ISAR and numerous other launch companies/consortia. Andoya spaceport is optimised for launching to polar orbits and not a realistic competitor to the ArianeSpace spaceport in French Guiana, much like SaxaVord and other spaceports based on the European continent. Vega is also an ESA-funded international collaboration project which actually started off managed by ArianeSpace, and the next generation of Avio-managed Vega rockets will be integrated in French Guiana and flown from ArianeSpace's spaceport...
That's fixed by having the CI server compile the code and run tests, and having it fail the merge and publicly shame the offender in slack when that happens.
It's often said that you can't fix behavioral problems with technology, but I've found that tooling that strictly enforces rules is really useful.
Yes and no. A single chip cannot have it's weights adjusted, once it's out, it is what it is.
But also, the model weights are in a single mask rom layer, high up in the metal stack. They could manufacture the die specialized for a given geometry of a model up to that layer, wait for updated weights, and then get the final product out in weeks after they got the weights, instead of many months which is what it would take to redesign the whole chip for the new weights.
We unfortunately have not found a way to turn our kleptokratic dictatorship neighbor into one.
The greatest failure of the past 20 years was the belief that if we open up trade and grow rich together, rational self-interest will lead to liberalization and peace. Instead, it just gave our enemies more resources to spend on self-destructive imperialist ambitions.
He tracks down where the statement "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" actually comes from, and whether the assumptions set out in the text where it was published still hold.
It doesn't really contain anything new or earthshattering, but if you find diving into the history of programming as a discipline interesting, it might be for you.
I would recommend it to anyone who liked the rambling style of "The big OOPs", but imo that one was better. I still liked it.
EU opposes the Houthis because they are a horrifying slave state that distributes children as sex slaves to their troops.
EU opposes Russia because it is a horrifying fascist dictatorship that has repeatedly invaded it's neighbors, and constantly talks about it's historical claims to EU territory.
In the NA conflicts it's harder to draw such a clear line, because the conflicts typically have about 15 sides each, but the basic algorithm you can use is generally that EU tries very hard to pick sides based on morality, not geopolitical interests.
reply