Seems like exactly the kind of thing permissions are for.

That is indeed how things like copy/paste through the menus already work; you install an extension to get the clipboard permission or the browser limits you to keyboard shortcuts

Reliably terrible.

They also own a large part of the pet food industry. Given how much health is affected by diet, that's a huge conflict of interest.

Why can't they find something more interesting to do with their lives? They are wealthy enough to do anything and they choose to keep hoarding more and more.

The problem of offices is not when we spend time in them but rather that we spend time in them at all. What a banal hell it is we have consented to endure compared to the comforts of our homes or of any space actually designed for the wellness of human beings or even focused work.

>If you want the ability to start your work day earlier and end it earlier, that seems like a worker protection bill that needs to be passed.

If that's what passes for aspiration these days then the labour movement truly is dead.

It's been dead ever since workers thought 40h work weeks and 2 weeks off a year was a good deal.

If your key is a hash of the code and its dependencies, for a given toolchain and target, then any change to the code, its dependencies, the toolchain or target will result in a new key unique to that configuration. Though I am not familiar with these distributed caching systems so I could be overlooking something.

That's not the issue I'm worried about

Rust's real superpower is its tooling. Cargo handles package management, building, testing, documentation, and publishing. The compiler's errors explain what went wrong and where it happened. Installing the toolchain with rustup is quick and painless, even on Windows. I can't know that it's best in class, but it's certainly the best I've used.

I can see another language having a more expressive type system, I've come up against the limitations of Rust's type system more than once, but the tradeoff isn't worth it if I have to go 20 years back in time in terms of tooling.

Rust is much older than Zig, though, and there's nothing stopping Zig (or any future language that doesn't adopt Rust's precise set of guarantees) from having the same, or possibly better. Given Zig's immaturity, I certainly wouldn't use it for any serious production software today.

BTW, I'm not saying Rust is bad. All I'm saying is that the attempt at proving it's objectively best by leaning on memory-safety is not really as objective as the people who make that claim seem to think it is.

I hadn't heard of ATS before, and I think that I mistook your using it as an example of "more isn't always better" and thought you were suggesting it as an actual alternative.

I'm looking for the next thing I want to learn, and have been leaning towards logic programming and theorem provers, so you inadvertently piqued my interest.

Sure, just keep in mind that various formal verification tools vary greatly in their usability, even theorem provers. I.e. the experience with ATS will be quite different from Lean, which will be quite different from TLA+.

That C++ already has many implementations of sparse sets seems to be a point in favor of sparse sets rather than a point against Rust, especially given that C++ doesn't need them the same way Rust does.

Well, there's several implementations because it's a bit of a leaky abstraction, and implementation details matter/vary across use-cases, which is consistent w/ my experience of rust having heavy fragmentation in applying the array-index pattern for "weak pointers."

We must be working from different definitions of efficient.

Yes, the CCP can say jump and expect their corporations to do so, but when everyone in a modern economy jumps at the same time, massive oversupply is the result. More market-based economies are also prone to similar overproduction when everyone gets caught up in the same mania (see AI datacenters), but investors will eventually stop lighting their money on fire when it becomes clear that the returns aren't there. Chinese companies, on the other hand, will just keep jumping until the CCP decides that they are done jumping.

Our feedback loop is geared towards only doing things that provide a return on investment. Their feedback loop has things like social stability and global competitiveness as competing goals to actually doing productive work.

Yes, they are able to accomplish a tremendous amount when they set their minds to it, but doing a tremendous amount more of something than there is actual demand is waste, the opposite of efficiency.

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/china-is-sending-its-...

> Their feedback loop has things like social stability and global competitiveness as competing goals to actually doing productive work.

Sounds like you're making the case for their system here!

When I say they prioritize social stability, I mean that they won't stop producing cars regardless of how little economic sense it makes because they need to keep people employed to stave of massive civil unrest. And global competitiveness counts for little when the countries they want to export to implement anti-dumping policies to protect their own industries from government-subsidized Chinese exports.