There does exist a crate that allows you to turn it off. Unfortunately the compiler will still compiler your code assuming the same exclusive access rules imposed by the borrow checker, so any time you break the borrow checker rules you’re basically guaranteed to segfault.

The rust compiler always assumes mutable pointers are exclusive. This is the crux of your issue with the borrow checker. If you don’t make this assumption, then you can’t automatically drop variables when they fall out of scope, thus the programmer would have to manually allocate memory.

You may prefer even then to allocate memory yourself, but if I was you I would just trust the rust compiler in its assumption that it can optimize programs much better when all pointers are exclusive, and learn to program in a compliant manner

Set don’t forget set -E as well to exit on failed subshells.

Sorry if this response is mal-informed and misses some important part of your workflow, but if all you’re trying to do is run a postman collection then all you really need is newman.

A quantum computer can perform many operations in parallel. That is a feature of QM.

You’re trivializing the capabilities. This is not something you can just simulate on classic hardware while maintaining the O(n) performance of an actual quantum computer.

The fact that it is probably possible to do this stuff in the first place with a quantum computer is the point.

It’s not a theory because it has made no testable predictions. It’s just as valid as claiming, “Angels did it.”

I don’t disagree with this statement as stated but try and have some appreciation for the fact that this sort of reality-bending invention is possible.

It’s ok to start speculating.

If you have an analog computer that simulates a ball falling, you have an analog of a ball.

In this case your analog computer would literally have some kind of ball as part of the apparatus. Thus you would be able to argue that the result is proof of a ball having been dropped and having taken exactly x.seconds to fall.

If you have an analog integrator you literally produce cyclic motions of the constitute frequencies of some signal in order to form the output graph.

What you are doing is trying to use the above statements to argue some statement about quantum computing. Clearly any attempt to do so is complete nonsense.

If anything reconsidering the argument above just lends MORE credence to the idea of a multiverse. Wherever you have an analog computer producing a result the intermediary compontents of the result physically exist. If the same applies for a quantum computer the space in which different permutations of intermediate results must physically exist.

I’m not trying to insult you but you’re clearly forcing some nonsense argument just to match the conclusion you’ve already had in mind before understanding the argument put forward.

Edit: I realized now I confused the “ball and disk” integrator for a similar physical apparatus that was used to compute fourier transforms but the point still stands

Dropping a ball is not an effective means of computing a square.

A quantum computer is such an effective means of performing its computations, that it brings into question how it can even be possible that the electronic signals forming the intermediate results can all simultaneously exist and be consumed in the first place.

You doubling down again on comparing these two just proves you don’t understand anything about the claims being made.

That a natural phenomenon occurs with precision that would require enormous computation to simulate

This isn’t the argument put forward by the article. Nothing about the precision of the measurement is made to be something of significance.

Also even if that was the case your analogy of it being like a rolling ball is totally inadmissible because a computation is not the same thing as a measurement.

Your attempt to liken the two shows some serious level of stubbornness in rejecting what possibly could be a very meaningful advancement in technology and metaphysics.

It’s totally ok to brush this article off as poorly written sensationalist crap but the problem is you don’t seem to understand the argument for why quantum computing capabilities are indicative of the possibility of a multiverse in the first place.

Nothing against office workers trying to scrape by and make a living but holy fuck did this company ever have this coming.

Nothing like watching the greedy ouroboros devour itself in real time.

I understand your perspective but at the end of the day all you’re doing is justifying why you should be able to disregard this guy’s blog post under the premise that he comes off as someone who’s full of himself.

At the end of the day vaxray’s ability to state that “almost all the other compositors suck beyond opening terminal windows” should be tied to whether or not the statement is true/justifiable; it shouldn’t be tied to whether or not people can’t stand the optics of it.

I’m not the one going around making statements that imply reliable wayland compositors can just be readily whipped up and shipped out.

You can complain about the guy’s ego if you feel like he’s talking up his product too much, but if you’re going to reject valid statements he’s making under the assumption that they’re all self-motivated and therefore incorrect, then you should be able to justify the position.

Oh lit so you wrote up your own compositor?

Where would you rather they go? Fucking Auschwitz??

I ended up coding my own.

Lots of stuff I’d want in an applications launcher on hyperland. I’d need it to have all the functions of the important system indicators and essentially take the role of the top panel in gnome.

You never own a game unless you buy the holder of the IP. Read your TOS. You buy a licence to use a software and to obtain the necessary data to use it. Nothing more. Even when you buy a hardcopy in a shop you don’t own the software.

If you own a physical cartridge/disk on an old console, you own permanently playable physical copies of the games. No publisher is able to stop you from playing it. It is a permanently usable piece of tangible property which you legally own. This is what people talk about when they say they “own” games. IDGAF if the GoG ToS says I don’t “own” a game if they have no ability to revoke my ability to play it once I’ve downloaded it. It’s as playable as any physical game, for as long as I keep my hard disks intact. This is what it means to “own” a non -service based game, by any sensible definition of the word.

No one here claimed you become, or deserve to become the IP holder of the software. This is just a strawman that you made up because the idea of someone not making the same idiotic purchasing decisions as you personally offends you.

You can downgrade games in the setting as long as the publisher (!) allows/support it. It is done by a lot of games.

Publishers should not be able to deny you the right to modify the software you downloaded after you downloaded it. If they have a different opinion on the matter then I won’t be a consumer of their services.

It’s all just Stockholm syndrome and copium for you. Maybe one day in your 40s steam will decide to bleed you dry for everything you think your library is worth. They’ll force you to pay a subscription fee just to access single player games purchased many years ago.

And you’ll be able to do nothing about it, because you never own a game unless you buy the holder of the IP. Read your TOS. You buy a licence to use a software and to obtain the necessary data to use it. Nothing more.

Keep defending your abuser though I guess.

Terraria does not rely on steam features in order to engage with its core functionality. Perhaps you are trying to imply that the error is in the developers having integrated their publishers features into their release in such a way that a hard dependency on the runtime is formed when it shouldn’t be.

This is not a valid argument because whatever calls terraria is making to the runtime should have a fallback in place for when the runtime is not being used. That fallback should be implemented by a small dummy runtime or something. It shouldn’t be on the devs to ensure their single player game works when the publisher’s adware bloated garbage runtime stops working.

I assume it does force DRM. I can’t play Terraria, skyrim, elder ring, etc. without it. I have not encountered one release which I can play without the runtime.

Terraria in particular shouldn’t use it unless it was forced to do so based off the fact that they’re available on gog which mandates games be drm free.

I’m not even allowed to run that game without updating it if it’s out of date. I literally can’t play a modded game because it may be rendered unplayable at any moment by the publisher. Makes the whole workshop people talk up all but useless.

Gog could use more games but if it’s between using a platform that forces you to use a runtime and nothing at all, I’d much rather play nothing at all.

Fuck this platform.

Fuck mandatory DRM.

Fuck the garbage runtime that takes minutes to start every time I wanna play a goddamn single player game.

Fuck mandatory updates every time I want to play a goddamn single player game.

Fuck popup advertisements for events that reappear year by year no matter how many times I’ve disabled them

This platform prevents you from owning anything…

I don’t know how anyone could support this garbage.

“Still not voting for genocide”

You say as you side with Hamas who openly calls for the genocide of the Jewish race.

Honestly C imo is not that bad. It’s actually a very small specification. There’s not much to it. The actual amount of code you’d need to create a working C compiler is relatively tiny.

It stuck around all this time because concepts like null-terminated strings, arrays decaying to pointers, etc. are all very intuitive if your working in a language that’s built to be as minimalistic and simple as possible.

If you understand these things I’d say you’re already past the learning curve. Now just make sure you remember exactly how type definitions are parsed so that contrived type declarations don’t cause you to lose marks on an exam.

The difficulty with C imo comes with people needing programming concepts abstracted away from them because they never actually learned how their computer represents or processes data.