leisesprecher

If the vast majority of people are affected, is it really "extreme" anymore?

Well, actually you're kind of wrong, at least in some contexts.

So I'm not sure, how that works in other countries, but here in Germany, a large bid for some public contact has to parrot the requirements. The process includes a bloke essentially ticking all of the boxes in their request, and if you say (just for example) "we will deploy that in our k8s cluster" but they require a cloud ready solution, the bloke will not tick the box. Yes, that's incredibly stupid.

Apart from that, who reads the bid texts? Not technical people, but bean counters and MBAs. The technical people on the other side are only asked for comment, they have no say.

I wish you would be right, but in a world full of people desperately trying to justify their existence, fluff is essential.

Most "professional" writing is just a bunch of phrases interspersed with a few chunks of information.

I'm involved with bidding and grant proposal stuff for software and it's 90% empty words. I draw two diagrams and a page of text, sales deletes 60% of the text, misinterprets the rest and then puffs it up to 30 pages.

And reusable!

And let's be real here, it's not too rare, the current victims simply don't count as much.

All those "tropical" diseases seem to be completely irrelevant as long as only poor people in a developing country get it. But as soon as a good white person dies, it's defcon 11 and suddenly it's really important to develop something expensive to help the rich countries.

I'm still not sure, what exactly the journals are actually doing.

Like, in all seriousness, what service do they provide? Just hosting the platform for anonymized reviews and basically a blog for the actual articles? That should cost maybe a few millions each year, yet this sector makes billions in revenue.

Replacing C with Rust in the upstream kernel is akin to replacing the engine in a car while it's running or being used every day.

That's in no way what's been proposed. Rust is used in a very well defined niche, nobody wants to get rid of C.

But it's just that sentiment that got us here, you're arguing against a non-existent threat, and thus reject the whole proposal.

And it's a bad argument anyway. You're only good at memory management until the first bug takes down production.

Rust isn't a panacea and certainly has problems, but eliminating an entire class of potentially very dangerous bugs is a very good argument.

It's all just pointers with semantics attached.

One of our customers does that. It happened multiple times already that one dev fixed an issue in production, and the next regular deployment overwrote everything.

But fortunately, it's just critical infrastructure and nothing important.

The older generations kept leaking contaminated water (reactor coolant), many harbors simply refused entry because they didn't know the risks involved, and I'm pretty sure the decommissioning isn't clear either. The way current laws are set up, it's quite possible that these things go through a few hands and end up on a beach in some underdeveloped country and get dismantled like any other ship under horrible working conditions - but now with the added benefit of nuclear contamination.

No. Not at all. It's about gradient descent, an optimization technique.