Have you been on TikTok? All I see on it are large breasted women, NASA stuff and dog rescues.
I do wonder if there’s any lobbying going on from Facebook or Google to help bolster their Reels and Shorts products, both of which seem to be garbage and miss the point of TikTok (the two way interaction).
Yes, regular job control is available interactively.
Note that I'm interested in making scripting work better so I've made little to no attempt to ease interactive use (there are plenty of better alternatives for interactive shells).
I tend to use "rlwrap idio" to make editing easier.
There's a lot of Scheme-ish things available: setters, templates (aka macros but with changeable quoting: ` ' @), continuations.
I've added a few more tricks: computed variables (like SECONDS or RANDOM which dynamically get/set a value) and reader operators (which are the heart of infix "functions" and get to rewrite source code expressions, | being the obvious one for a shell).
All available to the user -- nobody wants to be writing stuff in C! :)
I read it as probably sarcasm, but no, in practice conservative state governments like the one in Texas like to micromanage your life (who to love, what you do with your body etc.)
That was indeed where many of my teenage hours went - hacking out game experiments in DJGPP and Allegro on our family’s 486. It was also my intro to Emacs which stayed with me for decades afterwards.
That was my first thought. Not FTX related, but I just got another email from Coinbase reassuring me that they’re not gonna use customer funds without permission. I have in the past moved my shit out of Coinbase wallets because of doubts about that. Honestly though I just want to GTFO of crypto at this point…
Get out, man. Learn investment theory. All you need is a couple of index funds and bonds. Investing isn't supposed to be exciting or make you rich quick.
And even there you can get access to options trading for quicker - and riskier - ways to make money using the traditional stock market. At least if you lose the money is not because somebody in the Bahamas decided it was time to retire earlier with your assets.
> All you need is a couple of index funds and bonds.
Ah, spoken like a true middle class Boglehead.
VTI/VOO will not change your life, even after 30 years. Broad market ETFs are not worth the risk.
You’re better off doing bonds (little to no risk) or crypto (high risk, more likely for life-changing generational wealth compared, even compared to FAANG SWE TC).
By that measure, the people who had their life savings in FTX (and Celsius and Luna before that) have certainly succeeded.
Investing in total-market index funds is the single best strategy for the average investor. (In fact it's so good there's a proof! [1]) If you invested $10000 in the total US market in 1992 (30 years ago) and never touched it again, your inflation-adjusted balance today would be $72452 [2]. That's an insane 7x of real growth that requires absolutely no effort on your part. Even if you did a more conservative mix of 60% stock and 40% bond (VBMFX) you would have 4.5x real growth.
> Coinbase reassuring me that they’re not gonna use customer funds without permission
"Not gonna" is wildly different from "cannot". So are you sure they physically cannot use your funds? If that's not the case, their promise is worth just the price of sending that email to you.
That's because in order to interact with pointers you need unsafe, and not using unsafe in Rust requires a single ownership tree or reference counting. If you're not keen on either of those solutions, you shouldn't be writing a Doubly Linked List in other languages either (because they will have either pointers or reference counting/GC).
"Those solutions" start off being hierarchical ownership or reference counting, but turn into "pointers or reference counting". Requiring pointers is implicit to the definition of linked lists, and calling it out here is silly. And you don't really need either ref counting (again, pretty obviously, witness every real world implementation) or hierarchical ownership outside Rust.
Conceptually, the list as a vague concept owns all the nodes. The ownership just stops being expressible directly through references the way Rust wants it to be. But you don't have to re-invent hierarchical ownership to implement DLLs in other languages, because it's not really there in the problem. You just have to accept that they're always going to suck under Rust's ownership model.
Technically the pointers don’t have to be actual pointers. And if they’re not actually pointers, then Rust’s ownership model and borrow checker will be perfectly content; they’ll barely trouble you at all. And you won’t even need any unsafe blocks.
What you do instead is use integers instead of pointers. The integers are indexes into a Vec of list nodes, owned by the linked list. Since the nodes are now owned only by the Vec, which is in turn owned only by the linked list, the borrow checker will not complain.
Some people object that this is cheating somehow, but what is memory but a giant untyped global vector, shared between all parts of your application? Pointers into that giant shared array are just indexes with extra risk, since you have to trust that they point to real nodes that have been initialized. Plus, you often see users of a linked list put the nodes into an arena allocator anyway, especially in the kernel. The Vec in your Rust implementation serves the same purpose as the arena allocator.
> Requiring pointers is implicit to the definition of linked lists, and calling it out here is silly.
The usual complaints are that "Safe Rust doesn't let you do this", when unsafe Rust is right there to let you operate on any soup of pointers datastructure that you'd want to implement.
> you don't really need either ref counting (again, pretty obviously, witness every real world implementation)
If you implement DDL in a memory managed language, you effectively have the same behavior as you would in Rust with Arc or Rc. The ownership of the nodes then belongs to the GC or the RC value. You don't have to think about it because you're abstracted from the lifetime of each node by the language and runtime.
> or hierarchical ownership outside Rust
The ownership/borrow checker requires hierarchical to operate, but it doesn't stop you from writing unsafe Rust.
> Conceptually, the list as a vague concept owns all the nodes. The ownership just stops being expressible directly through references the way Rust wants it to be. But you don't have to re-invent hierarchical ownership to implement DLLs in other languages, because it's not really there in the problem. You just have to accept that they're always going to suck under Rust's ownership model.
Yeah, and that's what unsafe is for. Most code doesn't need vague ownership, though. I'd go as far as saying that the nudge towards clear ownership helps both maintainability and performance.
My concern is with the prevalence of this idea that unsafe Rust is not "real Rust" or that the existence and use of unsafe Rust somehow precludes any benefits of Rust.
I am a late comer to TikTok (was curious after a recently reported news article on the potential booting/sale of TikTok back in the Trump days). All it shows me is large breasted women and “crystal polishers” (which I never knew was a thing). Everyone uses fake names - it’s not like Facebook where people offer up their real stuff. I’m kinda confused around where the security problems are.
> All it shows me is large breasted women and “crystal polishers” (which I never knew was a thing)
It shows me an endless stream of cute kittens. It's amazing.
I'm also confused by the security risks listed, I just checked the iOS privacy report that shows which sensors and data apps used, and TikTok is not even on the list. I'm also struggling to understand things listed in the article such as it accessing texts on the device(?) - like... it can't do that, at least not on an iPhone. As far as "voiceprints" and "faceprints" do they mean it video/audio content can be uploaded to it? Like thousand other apps?
If anything there should be an argument that by default the apps should be better sandboxed and permissions to be an explicit opt-in, this current approach just seems like fearmongering.
TikTok is well-known for using vulnerabilities to access more personally identifying data than it should from users [0], such as MAC addresses [1] and IMEI numbers for the SIM cards.
The fake names on TT are not what is the risk. Its the HUGE amoumt of metadata collected by the app and the opaque nature of its storage and permanence.
Those are also bad? Why TT is being talked about is that the bullshit Facebook and Google pull is normalised now so people don't talk about it as much.
Yes I don't trust these companies, but I sure as hell trust them more than Bytedance or the Chinese government. The amount of whataboutism in this thread.. Do we have a lot of Bytedance employees on hn?
I do wonder if there’s any lobbying going on from Facebook or Google to help bolster their Reels and Shorts products, both of which seem to be garbage and miss the point of TikTok (the two way interaction).