I'd say this comment fails the "Be kind. Don't be snarky" test. Wouldn't you? If we're appealing to the rules to justify our actions it puts a bigger burden on ourselves to make sure we're perfectly in line with them too :)
Same reason Android and Chrome and git and Linux weren't written in Rust when they started. Rust didn't exist. All of these projects integrate Rust now, after being single language projects for the longest time.
It's notable that the projects you mentioned mostly don't need to deal with adversarial user input, while the projects I mentioned do. That's one area that Rust shines in.
Rust will never be in Android user space, because it's not competing with Kotlin. Kotlin is already excellent there. Rust will replace the parts of Android written in C++ gradually. That was always the plan. It feels weird and cope-y to move the goalposts to say it's not a big deal unless Rust also replaces Kotlin.
Chrome only needs to replace the parts of their codebase that handle untrusted input with Rust to get substantial benefits. Like codec parsers. They don't need to rewrite everything, just the parts that need rewriting. The parts that are impossible to get right in C++, to the point where Chrome spins up separate processes to run that code.
Rust is the future for Android, and it will become an important of Chrome and Linux and git (starting 3.0). That's just the way it is.
Zig is what you want to write, because it gets out of the way.
Rust is what you want your colleagues to write, to enforce good practices and minimise bugs. It's also what I want my past self to have written, because that guy is always doing things that make my present life harder.
> oil will only get more expensive in the long term
Will it? Oil price will reach an equilibrium because lower demand due to electrification will lead to lower prices, which will increase higher consumption.
There are enough low cost oil producers like Saudi Arabia to keep the pipes filled with oil at whatever the prevailing market price is.
Whether Facebook/Meta can read the plain text of the messages or not depends on whether that encryption is "zero knowledge" or not, aka: does Facebook generate and retain the private encryption key, or does it stay on the users' devices only, never visible to Facebook or stored on Facebook servers?
In the former case, Facebook can decrypt the messages at will, and the e2ee only protects against hackers, not Facebook itself, nor against law enforcement, since if Facebook has the decryption key they can be legally compelled to hand it over (and probably would voluntarily, going by their history).
> Yeah, you see, I don’t think you’ve quite understood the art of talking to anyone
Have you? You're dripping with condescension for everyone who's replied to you so far, in addition to the guy in your anecdote. You've asked one person to "fuck off" when they were polite. Do you think closewith or pingou have enjoyed their interaction with you?
Or is your art of talking to people just meant to amuse you and ignore the feelings of others?
By the way, there is a social convention that we refrain from commenting on what's on people's phones even though we can see it. It's considered an invasion of privacy if we do.
> You've asked one person to "fuck off" when they were polite.
Someone doesn't understand an example when they see one.
> You're dripping with condescension for everyone who's replied to you so far,
Yes
> Or is your art of talking to people just meant to amuse you and ignore the feelings of others?
Every one of you has failed to see what's wrong with expecting people to act the way _you_ want when in public, and been compelled to tell me how _you_ think I should act to make _you_ happy. I can act the way I want, just like the gorilla on the train can act how he wants, and hark: this is the world. One can laugh at it, or one can get angry. I am laughing. You are, what? Being moved by symbols appearing on a screen, which evoked emotions attached to your lack of control over the way _I_ behave, which makes you feel afraid because I could "invade your privacy" -- what does that even mean? Like seriously, what does that matter what my eyes see? Why am I responsible for averting my eyes from shit you're presenting in public? Why should I not pass comment? Did I hurt your feelings? Because you forgot you're in public and didn't keep your shit private enough? Or did you hurt your own feelings through your own unrealistic expectations and your own failure to keep private what you just bandied around in public?
Because I can explain why you shouldn't turn into an ape and physically attack someone. Because physical violence leads to injuries which cannot be undone.
I am so sorry that I saw your phone in public, and that your feelings were so hurt by what my eyes saw - as a failure to stare firmly at the ground. And I'm sorry that my mouth vibrated some air particles that tickled your eardrum in a way that revealed a truth that made you feel uncomfortable. Beat me, I deserve everything you have for me.
What a troubled world you're trying to enforce.
> By the way, there is a social convention that we refrain from commenting on what's on people's phones even though we can see it.
There's a social convention that you don't go around displaying tits on screens that other people might see. So what? Did I turn into an ape and start fighting him? No.
>It's considered an invasion of privacy if we do.
"Invasion"? I barely moved a muscle. On this basis, his pornography invaded my consciousness. Did I turn into an ape and start fighting him? No.
Forgive me for speaking to all of you, for a brief moment, from a place of condescension, but y'all have a fragile expectation of privacy in public, if y'all are gonna turn into gorillas the moment you become aware of your own failure to conceal what you wish you kept private. Privacy is not in harmony with the properties of the physical world when in close proximity to other human beings - and it's not anyone's job to turn their eyes off, or keep their mouth shut, for your pleasure, just as the sky has no job ensuring the weather is in keeping with your desires. You can either fight or allow the world around you. I'm suggesting to you, that you allow it. The world rains on me all the time, and I play with every drop. If you're fighting, you're choosing to fight, and it's not a good look. If you're being "invaded", you're choosing to have something to defend.
I'm declining your invitation to close my eyes, and I'm letting you know my door is open, so come on in, but please, if you wouldn't mind - take your shoes off.
You've written a lot of words to avoid saying a simple thing - you wanted to mess with someone to entertain yourself and it backfired. That's the whole story. The philosophy is window dressing.
They haven't yet made languages other than JavaScript first-class languages for the web - https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/02/making-webassembly-a-first.... I wouldn't call this a broken promise, but it was something people were hoping would take less than a decade.
How did you come to the conclusion that it was blogs that made it change behaviour? Look at the examples where Claude shifted behaviour dramatically between Sonnet 4.5 and Opus 4.6. Drizzle ORM went from 21% to 100%. Was there an avalanche of Drizzle related blog posts that we all missed? Celery went from 100% to 0%. Was there a massive but invisible hate campaign against Celery?
Blog posts almost certainly helped. But dramatic shifts like these to favour newer tech indicates that there's some other factor in play.
reply