I like the description by a Finn who said: Rust is like a car with automatic, while in C (or Zig) you need to change the gears.

I don’t think this metaphor is correct. The automatic gear’s analogy would be the Garbage Collector, which almost every mainstream language has. Rust’s memory management, in comparison, is still manual. Maybe not as manual as C or Zig - but I’d say about as manual as C++. The difference is not that it has some weird gear-changing (memory cleanup) scheme that does not require human intervention - it’s that it yells at you when you don’t do the regular gear changing (memory management) properly.

<= makes sense if you start from 1.

You think they don’t add anti-cheats to singleplayer/co-op?

If they make the phones smaller they’ll have to make the ads smaller too. Can’t have that.

“North America” is the name of the continent. It can stay.

I guess the entirety of America is in dark corners?

1. Certainly looks like it’s going in that direction…
2. I assume you mean “the entirety of the USA”?

The heck is “instant opt-out”? As opposed to what? Not being able to close the ad unless you buy the product?

He won’t die before releasing Half Life 3, which means he’s immortal.

The best solution I found for the Paradox of Tolerance (or, more accurately, for a bigger class of problems that contain that problem) is https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/24/nominating-oneself-for-the-short-end-of-a-tradeoff/

The gist of it is that we decide on the following maxim: in conflicts of interest we should favor that cannot easily back off over the side who can.

For example - we want to tolerate a black person existing and we also want to tolerate^[1] a racist person being racist. These two toleration are conflicting. The black person can’t stop being black - they were born that way - but the racist person can choose to stop being racist. So we favor the black person’s existence, and do not tolerate the racist person’s racism.

This maxim is not perfect, of course. It does not apply to all cases, and it does leave up to debate the question of who is forced into the conflict and who is doing it out of choice (e.g. - a conservative may claim that LBGT people are willingly choosing to be so while they are forced, by word of God, to hate them). But I still think it’s an improvement:

1. It’s morally arguable. As long as we don’t go into the details, it’s easy to defend as a principle.
2. The question of who if forced into the conflict and who is willingly entering it can be discussed more objectively than the question of what should be tolerated and what shouldn’t (I’m not saying it’s always easy to agree - just that the discussion is more objective)
3. Even in cases where both sides are forced or cases where both sides are willing, looking at it through the lens of this maxim allows to point at the true perpetrators and/or the true victims, instead of arbitrarily picking one side to blindly side with.

I feel like I didn’t really recognize having different “platforms” like Mastodon, PixelFed, etc would give multiple opportunities for the fediverse to make a “first” impression with people.

Corporations have learned long ago the importance of properly identifying your audience, and the Fediverse is not exempt from that rule. Lemmy is the Fediverse version of Reddit and Mastodon is the Fediverse version of Twitter, and just like these two giants could live together with each other and also with Instagram without stepping on each other’s toes, so do their Fediverse versions can live with the Fediverse version of Instagram, PixelFed.

Now we’re just missing a Fediverse version of Facebook.

There are arms dealers on both sides. Anti-adblockers also require development, and I doubt anyone does that for free.

They are won by arms dealers.

Is that the new Minesweeper?

Why don’t they just use diamond, the hardest metal?

That’s a very quaternionphobic list.

The other four distros they use are Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Gobuntu and Mythbuntu.

What does ceding control even mean? Mastodon, just like Lemmy, is federated - each instance has its own governance. It was never controlled by a single person to begin with.

He can cede control of the GitHub repository, I guess, but:

1. That’s giving the controls to the contributors, not the users.
2. The article does not even hint at the existence of source code, and the announcement itself doesn’t talk about changes in that aspect either, so I don’t think that’s what’s happening here.

Bow tie, and also add a monocle.