I don't really have much interest in Zig the language, but Zig as a standalone C/C++ compiler is pretty great.
I'm using it as a cross-compiler for linux-arm64 because its much simpler to download a single archive and extract it somewhere than to waste a bunch of time on guessing how each different Linux distro does ARM64 cross compilers (or doesn't in the case of Fedora).
I’ve been using it for an embedded project to target arm thumb and the typical x86-64 hosts that communicate with a protobuf based protocol. It’s absurdly convenient to be able to just give windows users the repo, zig binary, and tell them to run ‘zig build’.
>>Why do you assume something like that? Do you actually know the arguments that the parties in favor of this kind of regulation are presenting? And can you dismiss them based on objective facts?
The moment anyone brings up the whole "just put a backdoor in that only we can access" despite years of people who actually know better saying that's not possible, is the moment when any further arguments become moot and not worth any further engagement or assumptions of good intention.
That's the single argument all these stupid "chat control" like proposals are based on.
Who is arguing for a backdoor? Do you actually know what are the proposed technical approaches or are you making assumptions?
> people who actually know better saying that's not possible
What is not possible?
> all these stupid "chat control" like proposals
For example here, you make your argument by stating that these proposal are "stupid". There is no effort that I can see to even try to understand where the other party is coming from.
And that is an issue, in my opinion. I think that a productive and honest conversation about a complex issue like this one requires empathy with the other party's position.
>>Who is arguing for a backdoor? Do you actually know what are the proposed technical approaches or are you making assumptions?
The 14 EU countries pushing for this policy to become law. Do you actually know the proposed technical approaches or are you just making assumptions?
>>What is not possible?
See my previous comments. I made it quite clear.
>>For example here, you make your argument by stating that these proposal are "stupid". There is no effort that I can see to even try to understand where the other party is coming from. And that is an issue, in my opinion. I think that a productive and honest conversation about a complex issue like this one requires empathy with the other party's position.
In situations such as this your empathy is misplaced. It should not be with the
bureaucrat seeking access to your private conversations under the false pretense of "keeping you safe" from w/e today's boogeyman is. It should be with the people who's safety is bolstered by the ability to have private conversations.
If you don't understand why this sort of stupid chat control policy is bad then there is no productive or honest conversation to be had.
>> If you don’t like that, just don’t buy from them…
That’s such a lazy argument. The restrictions shouldn’t exist in the first place. Or at the very least should exist in a way that can be disabled for those that actually want control over the stuff they own.
>>I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free
Except that it isn't. Epic v Apple proved this on the Apple side.
The fact that (according to Google) only 50% of Android malware comes from sideloading should also make you question where the other 50% is coming from. (Hint: a lot of it is from the Play Store)
The only similar claim I can find is they said is you're 50x more likely to encounter malware from internet-sideloaded sources than from the Play Store, but that's rather different.
Ok I absolutely misread that as 50%...either way, a not-insignificant portion of Android malware still comes from the Play Store, which was the point I was trying to make.
>>All three are more generic computers than any Apple mobile device and are purely walled gardens where we can't run whatever we want.
No they aren't. Game consoles are designed for a singular purpose. Apple's mobile devices are not singular purpose. I guess their watch might be? but that's the closest you'd get IMO.
The Xbox, Switch and PS5 play games, but they all allow you to install apps, stream movies, buy movies, stream audio and join fitness classes.
They also have chat apps and you can stream your own games to places like twitch for others to watch. And through simple steps they all have browsers you can load web pages on.
If a mobile phone is a computer, a game console is a computer.
Before I bought our first Apple TV, my Xbox One was dutifully fulfilling its role as our household's primary YouTube and Netflix streaming machine. It wasn't playing video games at all.
I uninstalled it after finding basic terminal functions broken.
I tend to append "clear &&" to commands I run frequently, to clear out output from a previous run. Every other terminal this works like you expect. In Warp, it doesn't. Turns they've hijacked the "clear" command for reasons I don't remember, such that it only works when you run it separately instead of as part a sequence. I only learned this when I went searching for a bug report on that found one that had been opened for a while where they essentially said they had no interest in making this sort of basic stuff work.
If we're going full reductio ad absurdum and taking snipes instead of conversation, then maybe the appropriate response is: You can be poor all you want, but don't expect someone else to subsidize your life.
My comment isn't really that absurd in the context of this whole thread and its insistence that decent quality internet service is something only the wealthy and/or those who live in urban areas should have access to.
Unreasonable is to use such incompetent companies like Cloudflare, which are absolutely incapable of distinguishing between the normal usage of a Web site by humans and DDOS attacks or accesses done by bots.
Only this week I have witnessed several dozen cases when Cloudflare has blocked normal Web page accesses without any possible correct reason, and this besides the normal annoyance of slowing every single access to any page on their "protected" sites with a bot check popup window.
Therefore "working as intended" for you means wasting the time of many people around the world, who cannot be considered as "threats" by any definition and who certainly do not waste any resources on the "protected" sites, because they are using the sites exactly for their intended purpose.
It is true that this has never happened before, but this week Cloudflare has frequently blocked my access to a site where I am a paid subscriber, and where there is no doubt that my access pattern matches exactly what that site must have been designed for, i.e. the site hosts a database and I make a few queries on it each day, less than a dozen, spread over the entire day, where each query takes a couple of seconds at most.
Whoever has implemented a "threat" detection algorithm that decides that such a usage is a "threat" and not normal usage, must be completely incompetent.
No they're supposed to allow scraping and information aggregation. That's the essence of the web: it's all text, crawlable, machine-readable (sort of) and parseable. Feel free to block ddos'es.
There is a difference between blocking abusive behavior and blocking all bots. No one really cared about bot scraping to this degree before AI scraping for training purposes became a concern. This is fearmongering by Cloudflare for website maintainers who haven't figured out how to adapt to the AI era so they'll buy more Cloudflare.
> No one really cared about bot scraping to this degree before AI scraping for training purposes became a concern. This is fearmongering by Cloudflare for website maintainers who haven't figured out how to adapt to the AI era so they'll buy more Cloudflare.
I think this is an overly harsh take. I run a fairly niche website which collates some info which isn't available anywhere else on the internet. As it happens I don't mind companies scraping the content, but I could totally undrestand if someone didn't want a company profiting from their work in that way. No one is under an obligation to provide a free service to AI companies.
No, they're supposed to rally together and fight for better laws and enforcement of those laws. Which is, arguably, exactly what they've done just in a way that you and I don't like.
What kind of laws and enforcement would stop a foreign actor from effectively DDoSing your site? What if the actor has (illegally) hacked tech-illiterate users so they have domestic residential IP addresses?
I'm using it as a cross-compiler for linux-arm64 because its much simpler to download a single archive and extract it somewhere than to waste a bunch of time on guessing how each different Linux distro does ARM64 cross compilers (or doesn't in the case of Fedora).