> At its core, Juno uses the YouTube website itself. No, not scraped. It presents the website as you would load it, but similar to how browser extensions work, it tweaks the theming of the site through CSS and JavaScript.
I don't know why it matters much, there is a near limitless plethora of tools one can use to do agent profiling, meaning that if Google cared enough they could still engage in hostile behavior to break the product in various ways.
they could, but on the other hand there are a lot of apps like vanced/newpipe that still exist, so...
Not just that, if under the hood the dev is using webkit+some extension-like blocking, it'll again be pretty hard to block and I'm not sure google is willing to invest effort/money in investigating this, esp considering that afaik juno doesn't even block ads
> Yes, that is 4 pairs of --s. This is because Bun will pass the first pair to another bun run command, the second will go to tauri dev, the third will go to vite dev, and finally the last set will go to Cargo when running the backend. It's a mess!
I attempted to delete my Wasmer account a week ago. The button just prompted me to send an email, so I did that, but didn't get response since. Any idea how to enforce GDPR here?
The typical way would be to report it to the data protection authority in the European country in which you reside. Then they'll decide whether to take any action.
I believe iPhone 5c was the last of the 32-bit ARM Apple devices. I guess technically that's iOS rather than macOS but as far as Zig is concerned, it's all Darwin.
>there are no use cases where memory unsafety is desirable, yet alone required.
There are plenty of 'use cases' where Rust's guarantees (some vague but unenforceable promises around memory) are not worth the cost of using Rust (a very high cost). This is doubly true if you want to, say, not use any third-party libraries. If you use third-party libraries, you get essentially zero guarantees. And if you don't, you have to reinvent the world - and writing new data structures in Rust is a series of research projects, whereas doing so in C is trivial.
There are many situations where guaranteed 'memory safety' (a Rust propaganda term for 'having the guarantees we can provide but not the ones we can't provide') is not very important.
That is absolutely true. But but you can write memory-bug-free code in Zig but you cannot prevent heap allocations in most of the languages listed in the article, making it outright impossible to write certain software in them.
Sure one can write memory-bug-free code in x86 assembly too. But how can you prove it? ATS is an example of a low-level systems language where you can prove it.
A function that doesn't allocate doesn't mean it's safe. (Indeed if anything the opposite is more likely - copying is safe, if slow, writing to something that was passed in tends to be what breaks).
formalized subsets of x86 assembly exist. Coq can be used as a macro assembler. tools to work with llvm ir exist, x86 can be raised up to llvm ir and proved, kinda bad way tho.
While that is true, there might be other requirements that prevent memory safe languages from being used. For example not having a heap available instantly disqualifies most of them. Or when you have simulations running where having constant OOB and other checks would be a massive slowdown. Now obviously your code should still be memory safe (because otherwise it's not correct anyway and you should fix the code), but not at the cost of runtime checks.
Memory safety is one aspect of quality yes, but is there any evidence Zig is a good fit for other quality aspects, e.g. static analysis tooling and correctness proofs? ATS is a low-level language that allows embedded proofs of correctness in the type system.
That article does not even mention Ada/SPARK... So much for safety. :P Yup, there is static analysis with Ada/SPARK and it is great. It is much more general-purpose than ATS, and there are other things in Ada/SPARK that increases safety in general, not only memory safety.
For what it is worth, Ada/SPARK has a strong presence in safety-critical domains like aerospace and medical devices, while Rust is gaining popularity in system programming and web development. ^^ I'm surprised that it is not as widespread. That, or lots of misconceptions.
Not to be snarky, but you argument works both ways :). What good is a medical device if it leaks sensitive data, because it had been exploited by a use-after-free?
I do apologize. The core contributors are all in the habit of using backticks (`@ctz`) but an endless stream of new contributors come in and understandably aren't aware of GitHub-flavored markdown.
