After writing this comment I noticed it became a bit ranty, sorry for that. Something about this article rubbed a bit in the wrong way.

The relevant section seems to be this:

Browser engines and garbage-collected runtimes are classic examples of code that fights the borrow checker. You’re constantly juggling different memory regions: per-page arenas, shared caches, temporary buffers, objects with complex interdependencies. These patterns don’t map cleanly to Rust’s ownership model. You end up either paying performance costs (using indices instead of pointers, unnecessary clones) or diving into unsafe code where raw pointer ergonomics are poor and Miri becomes your constant companion.

The first half is obviously correct, this kind of data model doesn’t work well for the ownership model rust uses for its borrowchecker. I don’t like the conclusion though. Rust makes you pay the performance costs necessary to make your code safe. You would need to pay similar costs in other languages if you intend on writing safe code.

Sure, if you are fine with potential memory corruption bugs, you don’t need these costs, but that’s not how I would want to code.

The other thing bugging me is how miri being your companion is framed as something bad. Why? Miri is one the best things about rusts unsafe code tooling. It’s like valgrind, or sanitisers but better.

Now, the raw pointer ergonomics could be better, I’ll give them that. But if you dive deep into what rust does with raw pointers, or rather what they are planning to do, is really really cool. Provenance and supporting cheri natively is just not possible for languages that chose the ergonomic of a raw integer over what rust does.

Just once I want that kind of headline to read “sold at a loss”

Somewhere an accessibility developer is crying in a corner because of what you just typed

Edit: also, please please please do not use alt text for images to wrongly “tag” images. The alt text important for accessibility! Thanks.

Sorry where does the .deb version store the encryption keys if not in plaintext?

Yeah it’s like halfgrip but you don’t need to grab the blade

I can feel a hint of the confused anger I would have felt if this was real. Good job.

Honestly. Nobody remembering Spahn going to visit with maga and heritage foundation, obviously building networks and learning strategy… Yeah it’s not great that the afd is doing it but the press needs to do a better job showing similarities between these actions

Therefore Nintendo does that only if they are 100% certain, not just to intimidate like Rockstar does.

Why would Nintendo be so different from Rockstar? Why would Nintendo not use lawsuits just to intimindate? Rockstar too is a company with many the same interests as Nintendo, and I’m sure their lawyers are not cheap either.

Yet, Nintendo did not go to court and wanted to do this with a settlement.

That just proves the point that the threat of a lawsuit is enough to coerce people into submission though. As another example RyujinX e.g. just caved without any struggle.

And the brought up case of Yuzu does not apply here, because that was not just intimidation, that was because the Yuzu developers themselves shared Tears of the Kingdom millionth of times in Discord.

This has nothing to do with the legality of their emulator project. Nintendo used their power to extort more concessions from the devs. It also shows how Nintendo isn’t afraid to use the uneven power balance to their advantage.

https://www.polygon.com/24090351/nintendo-2-4-million-yuzu-switch-emulator-settlement-lawsuit/

I’m gonna hazard a guess and claim that they would go for a copyright infringement claim, as they always do. Again: it does not matter, if they are actually in the right. Even the threat of being sued for something completely made up is still a credible threat if the relative costs are that unevenly matched. Nintendo doesn’t give a shit about what these lawyers cost, even if they lose the lawsuit in the end. The goal isn’t winning the lawsuit. The goal is intimidation, wasting your ressources, time and money. Which they also achive when they lose the lawsuit.

Sued for what? There is nothing Nintendo can sue for. Also we talked about Cease and Desist before, not sueing.

A c&d is a precursor of being sued. If you do not cease and desist, what is the result of that?

Also can you explain me, if you are right, why Nintendo didn’t do that with prior decompilation projects of Mario and Zelda games that reached 100% and are played on a variety of systems now?

I can explain to you, that Nintendo is famous for suing people implementing emulators of their platforms and is also going after things like palworld. It is new information to me, that these decompilation projects exist. I guess they are niche enough to not be interesting to nintendo right now. This does not remove all the other cases where nintendo went after people with lawsuits.

The experience and risks of being sued depends heavily on the amount of money you have. Just being sued, even if eventually unsubstantiated, sucks hard. It consumes time, energy, and money, and all this time you live with the “but what if I get the one bad judge?”

Imma be pedantic about this one: judges are not in the same part of the three separate parts of power as the police (at least commonly in democracies). Technically they are supposed to keep the cops in check and be a neutral independent instance.

In reality: most judges are bastards too if you have any qualm with the police, because that often translates to problems with state authority which includes them as well, which more often than not makes them allies to the cops.

No, the good bois are being forced to act as bad bois :(

when the mutual benefit of the practice was to provide ample space for fire trucks and ambulances on the roads.

This view weighs comfort of pedestrians against space for emergency vehicles and just takes it as granted that cars will and thus must be allowed to park there. It only asks “who do we discomfort with these cars” and not “can we stop discomforting people with all these cars”.

How about: no parking where there isn’t enough room for emergency vehicles left and leave the sidewalk to the fucking pedestrians that deserve not just a 1,5m tunnel of steel and concrete but a sidewalk that is comfortable to use.

Car owners shouldn’t be allowed to discomfort every pedestrian just because of their comfort of parking right in front of their house.

Me and you, we get that there is a difference. I am not convinced a majority of politicians, especially not German ones, get that.

The AfD is, for all their faults, relatively libertarian when it comes to privacy rights. That might be because they have a lot to hide, but that’s besides the point. It is definitely not because that’s “too right wing” for them.

We have had a push for “Vorratsdatenspeicherung” basically every legislature period which is kind of in the same category of “wtf stop doing that”. Ironically it was the FDP that saved us when the SPD in the last coalition tried to implement that. Not sure the CDU is going to stop Dobrint when he has his go at it.

I don’t see it as a grand departure from current party lines, except for the AfD while the Greens are very ambivalent between their fundi and realo party wings.

It will be harder for the advocates now to explain to the rest of the member states why it should be put back on the agenda.

All it takes is some form of crime that remotely looks like it could have been prevented by client side scanning. Be it child porn, be it terrorism, be it some big drug case. Now that scanning isn’t an exception anymore but generally allowed, the step to “just” forcing everyone to do what the big companies are doing anyways, won’t be as big.

In short: Assuming that they won’t have reasons and pressure to put this topic back on the table seems unlikely to me, considering the amount of resources they have continually put into this already. Especially since Germany seems to shift more and more towards more autoritarian tendencies itself, a few repetitions might be enough to finally topple their resistance

What the fuck is Theseus doing over there?

Something changes: we won’t be having this kind of engagement with the topic every time this exception needs to be renewed. Which means they have resources to allocate towards other goals, like finally making the scanning mandatory.

Frighter is for scareing distance