China has literally has been an empire most of it's history. It's like the 3rd biggest country on the planet. Just Tibet itself is huge and was absorbed into China not so long ago.
USA was already the richest nation before both world wars and way before NATO was established. Europe can't align with Russia, because Russian Empire wants pieces of Europe. It can't align with China, because trading with China is more or less one way and that can be taken away anytime China feels like it.
> USA was already the richest nation before both world wars and way before NATO was established. Europe can't align with Russia, because Russian Empire wants pieces of Europe. It can't align with China, because trading with China is more or less one way and that can be taken away anytime China feels like it.
In a world where the US is not a trusted partner, I'd expect the EU to do partial deals with the US and China while maintaining pressure on Russia.
Lets not forget that the US imports vast amounts of EU capital, and in the new world that makes less and less sense. And the US market having 60% of global equity value is not sustainable in this world either.
>> It's flabbergasting to watch this kind of opinion appear even here.
I don't agree with rayiner's opinion, but it's a completely rational point of view. Every empire thinks like that. Which part of it is so flabbergasting that is has no precedent many times over in our human history?
Well you see, <my side>'s swarm intelligence is organic and honest and people from <other side> are bots.
Jokes aside, the Harris campaign openly manipulated Reddit to get their opinions on the top [1]. I was there on election night. The entire site slowed to a crawl. Opinions of people you normally never read gained hundreds to thousands of upvotes. It felt organic for exactly one day.
If the plan is to sow division, it would be really weird to always only try to play one side. If I was trying to stir division, I would make sure to play all sides for maximum effect. But apparently other commentators here think only one side is being played and its always the same one.
>>Of course if one writes unsafe Rust and it leads to a CVE then that's on them. >>Who's denying that?
>>The recent bug in the Linux kernel Rust code, based on my understanding, was >>in unsafe code, and related to interop with C. So I wouldn't really classify >>it as a Rust bug.
Why is glue code not normal code in Rust? I don't think anyone else would say that for any other language out there. Does it physically pain you to admit it's a bug in Rust code? I write bugs in all kind of languages and never feel the need for adjectives like "technical", "normal", "everyday" or words like "outlier" to make me feel not let down by the language of choice.
I have worked with Rust for ~3.5 years. I had to use the `unsafe` keyword, twice. In that context it's definitely not everyday code. Hence it's difficult to use that to gauge the language and the ecosystem.
Of course it's a bug in Rust code. It's just not a bug that you would have to protect against often in most workplaces. I probably would have allowed that bug easily because it's not something I stumble upon more than once a year, if even that.
To that effect, I don't believe it's fair to gauge the ecosystem by such statistical outliers. I make no excuses for the people who allowed the bug. This thread is a very good demonstration as to why: everything Rust-related is super closely scrutinized and immediately blown out of proportion.
As for the rest of your emotionally-loaded language -- get civil, please.
I don't care if there can be a bug in Rust code. It doesn't diminish the language for me. I don't appreciate mental gymnastics when evidence is readily available and your comments come out as compulsive defense of something nobody was really is attacking. I'm sorry for the jest in the comments.
I did latch onto semantics for a little time, that much is true, but you are making it look much worse than it is. And yes I get a PTSD and an eye-roll-syndrome from the constant close scrutiny of Rust even though I don't actively work with it for a while now. It gets tiring to read and many interpretations are dramatically negative for no reason than some imagined "Rust zealots always defending it" which I have not seen in a long time here on HN.
But you and me seem to be much closer in opinion and a stance than I thought. Thanks for clarifying that.
The bug in question is in rust glue code that interfaces with a C library. It's not in the rust-C interface or on the C side. If you write python glue code that interfaces with numpy and there's a bug in your glue, it's a python bug not a numpy bug.
I already agreed that technically it is indeed a bug in the Rust code. I would just contest that such a bug is representative is all. People in this thread seem way too eager to extrapolate which is not intellectually curious or fair.
>> I guess that's at least in part because of the difficulty of building safe, fast and highly-concurrent C applications (please correct me if I'm wrong).
You wrote that question in a browser mostly written in C++ language, running on an OS most likely written in C language.
OS can be actually pretty simple to make. Sometimes it's a part of a CS curriculum to make one. If it were so much easier to do it in other languages (e.g. in Rust), don't you think we would already be using them?
Writing a real one? Who's gonna write all the drivers and the myriad other things?
And the claim was not that it's "so much easier", but that it is so much easier to write it in a secure way. Which claim is true. But it's still a complex and hard program.
(And don't even get started on browsers, it's no accident that even Microsoft dropped maintaining their own browser).
The toy one can still be as highly concurrent as the the real one. The amount of drivers written for it doesn't matter.
The point is if it were much easier, then they would overtake existing ones easily, just by adding features and iterating so much faster and that is clearly not the case.
>>difficulty of building safe, fast and highly-concurrent C
This was the original claim. The answer is, there is a tonne of C code out there that is safe, fast and concurrent. Isn't it logical? We have been using C for the last 50 years to build stuff with it and there is a lot of it. There doesn't seem to be a big jump in productivity with the newer generation of low level languages, even though they have many improvements over C.
This is anecdotal, I used to do a lot of low level C and C++ development. And C++ is a much bigger language then C. And honestly I don't think I was ever more productive with it. Maybe the code looked more organized and extendable, but it took the same or larger amount of time to write it. On the other hand when I develop with Javascript or C#, I'm easily 10 times more productive then I would be with either C or C++. This is a bit of apples and oranges comparison, but what I'm trying to say is that new low level languages don't bring huge gains in productivity.
>>Oh no some immigrant stole something out of my garden
I thought it was more because of them driving over people at Christmas markets, forming rape gangs or stabbing random people on the streets. It's deep intellectually dishonesty like yours that is driving them to that "party". Which is a bit ironic isn't it?
You have a weird sense of humanity if any of the attached links make you feel they were overblown. Why should Germans import all that necessary extra death and trauma when they have enough of their own?
reply