It is. I definitely agree that strings in Zig can be tedious, but the upside is that if you need it, you can build a string library that does everything you want it to do, in the way you want.

For comparison, while Rust offers a very rich string library, it's also very strict about what you can/cannot do with strings, so if your use case falls outside of that you're out of luck. With Zig, you can pretty easily roll your own and make it do what you want. (and when Zig is post 1.0, I imagine there will be some very nice pre-made string libraries by the community etc.)

You can also roll your own strings in Rust just fine. Take the bstr crate, for example.

Library interoperability becomes a PITA when everyone builds their own string library. Then you need conversion libraries.

But I don't think you can implement RAII in Zig?

Honestly, that was sort of the impression I got. It's not that the meth is contaminated, it's that the meth is way stronger and more pure. I wouldn't be surprised if incredibly high doses of any stimulant causes schizophrenia.

I disagree, if you'd like to propose solutions to these problems as well as an implementation strategy, I'd be very happy to hear them! Source: am the author.

You are the person I’ve written off as unreachably deluded per my comment above, so I don’t see much purpose in engaging with you.

Most AI data centres use evaporative cooling. One of the linked sources talks about this; that 7 billion cubic metres metric is how much water gets evaporated into the air. (which makes that water no longer usable for drinking/watering crops/etc)

Don't forget about my favorite part of chilled water loops—the toxic chemicals that lowest bidders are contracted to dispose of.

Source: Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)

> Evaporation Process: Roughly 80% of the water evaporates, cooling the servers, while minerals, microorganisms, and chemical additives (like anti-corrosion or anti-scaling agents) remain in the remaining 20% liquid, which is later discharged.

Up until pretty recently, I was unemployed and I also wanted a career change for similar reasons (although I'm in my 20s). I was broke, so going to school wasn't an option (plus I applied to a couple universities anyways and got rejected or waitlisted, I assume because of my age).

The economy is so messed up right now that the only jobs I found that didn't require a degree or several years of prior experience were hard labour for minimum wage. Even McDonald's apparently requires 3 years of experience.

So, my advice would be that school is expensive, wages are low, and if you're in a spot where you can reasonably get a decent paying job, you should take advantage of that. (as much as I would love to work in an industry that isn't the total shitshow that software is right now)

Exactly - purely "data driven" decisions are how we end up with ads really close to (or overlapping with) some button you want to press, because the data says that increase click-through rate! But it's actually a user-hostile feature that everyone hates.

The reason that feature gets implemented is not because the devs think users will like it ... they know users don't want it, but it drives revenue and pays salaries.

If we were perfectly rational, then yeah, more data should never lead to worse decisions. However, it's easy to fall into the trap where being data-driven makes you only work on those things that you know how to measure.

Or worse, it makes you go look for data backing up the assumptions you already made.

It's easier to not care about users if they are just numbers and you can tell yourself to ignore what they actually say.

I've never really had the urge to use GC in Rust, but if I were to speculate, I'd say easier cyclic references would be one benefit. And depending on the specific GC implementation, you can probably get around many of Rust's ownership rules because Gc<T> pointers are usually `Copy`, so you can pass things around everywhere and not think about references/ownership as much.

Okay I could see that - like implementing linked lists would be easier yeah?

I just feel like not having GC is sort of a deliberate, core design choice for the language. Having strict ownership rules and being forced to think about references feels like a feature not a bug you know? Adding GC feels analogous to the "++" in C++ to me.

Not that I have anything against the efforts people are putting into it though - I'm genuinely curious about what it lets me do better/faster within rust.

GC is a similar but different set of strict ownership rules (and its own versions of being forced to think about reference invariants). There's an inherently interesting Venn Diagram overlap between Rust borrow mechanics and GC, they aren't entirely separate worlds. They are more like related worlds with slightly different trade-offs. (Similarly there's C# and .NET actively exploring GC-safe relatives of Rust's borrow mechanics in Memory<T>/Span<T> space right now, to great effect.)

In terms of practical, yeah a doubly linked list (or trees with bidirectional pointers to both parent and children, etc) is especially easier to implement in a GC environment than with Rust borrow checking alone. You can do it without a GC, but a GC can be a helpful intermediary.

I agree completely; I think choosing Rust and then adding a GC is a weird design choice. If I was in a situation where I really, truly needed GC for my memory management, I wouldn't use Rust.

I think you're misunderstanding - most people's beef with AI art isn't that it "isn't made by experts", it's that

1) it's made from copyrighted works, and the original authors receive no credit; 2) it is (typically) low-effort; 3) there are numerous negative environmental effects of the AI industry in general; 4) there are numerous negative social effects of AI in general, and more specifically AI generated imagery is used a lot for spreading misinformation; 5) there are numerous negative economic effects of AI, and specifically with art, it means real human artists are being replaced by AI slop, which is of significantly lower quality than the equivalent human output. Also, instead of supporting multiple different artists, you're siphoning your money to a few billion dollar companies (this is terrible for the economy)

As a side note, if you have a business which truly cannot afford to pay any artists, there are a lot of cheaper, (sometimes free!) pre-paid art bundles that are much less morally dubious than AI. Plus, then you're not siphoning all of your cash to tech oligarchs.

I think there's a difference between

"Hey boss, this isn't practical with the requirements you've given. We need to revise them to continue, here are my suggestions"

and

"Task completed! Btw, I ignored all of the constraints because I didn't like them."

Humans do the former quite often. When we do the latter, our employment tends not to last very long. I've only seen AIs choose the latter option.

Or the "find all references" feature almost every code editor has...