AIUI, Servo has been a failure because Rust is not very good at this problem domain. Browsers have to deal with circular references and this is easily handled in C++.

Hopefully someone who knows more will explain this better

Rust has memory-safe handling of circular references, but it can also be done with "unsafe" blocks.

It's (much) more involved than using C++, but that's a worthwhile tradeoff for something as important as a browser engine.

More info: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2021/rust-data-structures-with...

This kind of dogmatism is why people think Rust will be impossible to adopt. All `unsafe` means is that the code inside the block doesn't have Rust's guarantees and should be inspected extra carefully by hand, much the same as you'd ideally inspect every single line of C. If sprinkling `unsafe` everywhere allows an organization to quickly adopt Rust's guarantees elsewhere and they're aware of that caveat (hard not to be given the naming) that can only be a net improvement over doing the entire thing in C.

You can always go through and systematically remove unnecessary `unsafe` later if needed, but there's no need to do so upfront if that would prevent adoption.

there's literary two other patterns on the one example in this thread...

refactoring those unsafe will never happen in the kind of place that put them in place to begin with.

Quarterly fees are ~$15k

The domain for my work project was over $400k. Buying a gTLD would have been way cheaper, but wouldn't have managed to get us the cool domain we have.

edit: on the other hand, we're hostage to a country who could ruin everything. I guess someone above my pay grade rolled the dice

Yes, take two heat pumps in series and run one as AC and another as heat and you'll get far more than 1.5 gallons of drinking water out of arid air than this

Words have meanings other than what the government says they are

Even by OPs own link, they are wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108

> it is *not an infringement of copyright* for a library or archives

Emphasis is mine here. The OPs link does not define what an archive is or isn't, it defines constraints on an archive or library such that it doesn't infringe on copyright according to US law.

To conclude that the IA is not operating an archive because they might be infringing on some copyrights according to US law is fallacious thinking.

You have it backwards. It is not an infringement of copyright if an archive or library reproduces and redistributes according to the exceptions set forth.

The Internet Archive quite clearly does not abide by those exceptions, and as such they are infringing copyright and not an archive protected by these laws.

If the Internet Archive (or anyone and anything for that matter) wants to spend my tax dollars, they can start by first abiding by the laws and regulations of the legal jurisdiction they reside in, in this case the USA's.

This is what you said:

> An archive very clearly means something very specific

What you perhaps meant to say was:

"An archive that infringes US copyright laws should not be afforded protections under US law"

Most people, myself included, took issue with the way you dismissed IA as not being an archive altogether; it clearly is an archive and whether or not it infringes US copyright law does not change that fact.

Whether it should be protected by law is a different matter.

Staying within the bounds of copyright to do vital preservation work is the best way to set oneself up for failure before you even begin. Piracy is preservation, always has been, always will be, and is always moral for that reason. Large rights holders have zero interest in being stewards of their content for the eventual public domain transfer. They'd rather the work cease to exist than the public own it. That is direct theft from the public in a way that mere copyright infringement, and even monetized copyright infringement, doesn't actually approach the concept of theft. If a rightsholder releases a work, and refuses to preserve it, it is the public's moral imperative to ensure the work endures until copyright lapses.

This does not apply to unreleased work. If you create something and keep it private, I don't consider you to have a moral obligation to ensure your work eventually becomes public domain. If you do distribute that work to the public, at that point I do consider you to have that obligation, and if you won't do it, then someone else has every right to ensure that the public will gain ownership of the work at the appropriate time of copyright expiration.

No one else in this discussion accepts your definition of an archive. No one else is moved by the argument that they violated your chosen definition. The problem isn't that you haven't explained yourself clearly; you have, we understood, and we weren't convinced. Repeating yourself won't change that.

To be frank with you, it seems to me like this organization did something that is counter to your politics, and so you refuse to acknowledge the obvious reality that engaging in archival activity makes them an archive (to all the world if not you personally). I don't think you're speaking from a place of interest in preserving cultural and historic artefacts, it would appear your interest is in lashing out at them because you have chosen to view them as your ideological enemies.

And I think that's a shame, and not compatible with the goal of curious discussion. I think you ought to be able to express your disapproval without taking these ontological liberties. The other commenter's suggestion ("they shouldn't be protected by the law") is a good example.

> If Apple feels these rules are so just and fair and indispuitably correct, why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers?

Because if would harm shareholder value. You don't need a more complicated explanation about the whole situation.

If customers being informed about your business practices will result in harm to shareholder value, you've got a problem.

But they will ride high in a pile of money until the curtain is drawn back. It's worth it to them

you can also use access methods on structs in 1.17 so you don't need the Access.key hack with get_in

I'm not sure this is true? Or I misinterpret.

    Erlang/OTP 27 [erts-15.0] [source] [64-bit] [smp:4:4] [ds:4:4:10] [async-threads:1] [jit:ns]
    Interactive Elixir (1.17.1) - press Ctrl+C to exit (type h() ENTER for help)
    iex(1)> defmodule X, do: defstruct [:a]
    {:module, X,
     <<70, 79, 82, 49, 0, 0, 7, 128, 66, 69, 65, 77, 65, 116, 85, 56, 0, 0, 0, 244,
       0, 0, 0, 22, 8, 69, 108, 105, 120, 105, 114, 46, 88, 8, 95, 95, 105, 110,
       102, 111, 95, 95, 10, 97, 116, 116, 114, ...>>, %X{a: nil}}
    iex(2)> x = %X{a: 1}
    %X{a: 1}
    iex(3)> x[:a]
    ** (UndefinedFunctionError) function X.fetch/2 is undefined (X does not implement the Access behaviour

    You can use the "struct.field" syntax to access struct fields. You can also use Access.key!/1 to access struct fields dynamically inside get_in/put_in/update_in)
        X.fetch(%X{a: 1}, :a)
        (elixir 1.17.1) lib/access.ex:322: Access.get/3
        iex:7: (file)
    iex(4)> get_in(x, [:a])
    ** (UndefinedFunctionError) function X.fetch/2 is undefined (X does not implement the Access behaviour

    You can use the "struct.field" syntax to access struct fields. You can also use Access.key!/1 to access struct fields dynamically inside get_in/put_in/update_in)
        X.fetch(%X{a: 1}, :a)
        (elixir 1.17.1) lib/access.ex:322: Access.get/3
        iex:7: (file)
    iex(5)> get_in(x, [Access.key!(:a)])
    1

    get_in(x.a)

better example would be nested.

    get_in(x.a.b.c)

It does a great job picking up voices though

We still emulate a typewriter that communicates over telegraph in our modern *nix OSes. Good luck removing that and keeping everything built upon it

The legacies of systems are a practical reality, not a "core principle" of computer science, that's the issue with the claim. Computer science barely even concerns itself with the limitations of real hardware, much less giving two shits about software legacies.

The conflating is no doubt coming from how many cs programs heavily comingle computer science with vocational training for becoming a programmer, but they're not the same thing.

I think we all agree that their lives are more valuable than whatever the cost of the recovery mission would be to bring them home safely, but isn't it disheartening that the only reason we could agree to spend that much money to save so few lives is because of the spectacle of it all?

Boeing has competition in the USA?

Yes, like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and now also SpaceX.

Nationalizing Boeing will only make the problem worse, because guess what: Nationalized companies won't fail, so there is absolutely no incentive to be good which is worse than the situation now.

The three companies you mentioned aren't in commercial aviation, which has been the bulk of discourse about the problems concerning Boeing. There is no other U.S. company in competition with Boeing for commercial aviation. And based on how Boeing has been behaving, it seems like they already feel no incentive to be good.

>commercial aviation, which has been the bulk of discourse about the problems concerning Boeing.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Most of their problems have been in the military aviation sector, between problems and failures in the KC-46 Pegasus, V-2 Osprey, Air Force One version 2, F-15EX, and F/A-18 Super Hornet programmes among others.

Their failures in civilian aviation and space are all intrinsically linked with their military failures all likely having common causes, it's plaguing their entire company from top to bottom across all their markets.

The KC-46 is a 767; AF1 is a 747. Lockheed and Grumman don't compete with those sorts of aircraft; Boeing at the very least holds a monopoly on US-made large airliners.

Would the US actually let Boeing fail currently?

If the failure is severe enough, ultimately yes. There is only so much bailing out that a capitalist free market country can provide.

No doubt the US government will bail out Boeing at least once, but I would expect that to be it. A one last chance point of no return. If Boeing ever gets to that point and still fails further, the US will have no choice but to have them fail.

On the plus side, it's not like Boeing going under is an actual national security threat. There is nothing wrong with relying on Airbus who will no doubt move into the newly vacant market spaces, we are all NATO allies aren't we? To say nothing of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman who do a better job of military aviation anyway.

Just a few years ago the US government imposed a 220% import tariff on imported Bombardier jets to protect domestic commercial airliner manufacturing:

https://www.corporatejetinvestor.com/news/us-government-impo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo...

I'm also not sure "we'll probably only bail you out once" is a great position to take in motivating Boeing and its ownership and governance to make major changes to survive as a company.