You vastly overestimate how hard it is to have someone killed.
It doesn't take nation-state resources to kill a random civilian. It's a few tens of thousands of dollars. Even a few million is basically nothing to a corporation like this.
It’s not the money that’s the issue, it’s the risk of getting caught with multiple life sentences. They got money to spare but it’s useless when you serve 50 behind bars.
And that's why no murders are ever committed, because the possibility of jail time or capital punishment dissuades anyone who would consider committing murder.
Admittedly, we're speculating in conspiracy-land right now, but...
Yeah, going to jail for years is a pretty decent deterrent for committing murder. But a criminal investigation was officially opened into Boeing. Maybe some powerful individuals realized they could be looking at jail time anyway if certain information comes to court, so they ran a risk analysis and decided it was worth it.
You do know that professional hitmen actually exist, right? You can straight up pay a guy to kill someone for you.
It would be utter insanity to ask someone who legally works for you to kill someone. Which is why that doesn't happen. What actually happens is someone tells someone to deal with the guy and a paper bag full of cash appears in front of Joe's Killin Place in the middle of the night.
No, professional corporate hitmen do not exist in contemporary America. Again, movies and video games are not real life. The only "hitmen" in real life are idiot junkies who get hired by their idiot cousin to kill their estranged wife in exchange for drug money and then immediately get caught because violent criminals are morons and not criminal masterminds.
I need you to understand something. This comment is so utterly unhinged that it's either parody or something you take way, way too seriously. This is a caricature of the prototypical bitcoin bro that everyone makes fun of. Nonsense like this is the exact reason that people mock and dismiss cryptobros.
You seem to not understand that someone can disagree with you without it being some grand conspiracy or authoritarian cabal. It is infinitely more likely that people disagree because they think you're a moron. People think you're a moron because you act like one. Spouting off about conspiracies and cabals and you've somehow pulled Obama into it?
You aren't being dismissed because the big bad communists want to steal your bitcoins. You're being dismissed because you're pasting nine whole paragraphs of absolute insane ramblings.
Your command to "understand" is delightfully authoritarian, a classic hallmark of the traffic cop mentality. It's as if my non-conformity offends you on a personal level. Labeling me as "unhinged" is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to cognitive dissonance; you're confronted with a narrative that challenges your deeply ingrained respect for authority and, finding no rebuttal, resort to ad hominem attacks.
It's amusing how seriously you insist Bitcoin cannot be taken, despite it now commanding 1% of energy supplies in numerous locales and the cryptocurrency market cap reaching $2T. This isn't a fad; it's a serious economic revolution. Were those of us who believed from the start, including luminaries like Timothy C May, Intel's chief scientist, all "morons"? Or is the true folly in dismissing what you fail to comprehend, resorting to juvenile labels like "cryptobros"?
You accuse me of spouting conspiracy theories, yet I've merely stated historical and economic facts. The founding of the Bank of England for waging war, the inherent violence of fiat currencies leading to confiscation and inflation crises worldwide—these are not conspiracies, they are realities that you choose to ignore.
Your dismissal stems from a place of fear, not superiority. Governments and their conformist, collectivist, and statist cheerleaders fear Bitcoin because it represents a fundamental shift in power dynamics. Your attempts to ban or discredit it only underscore its resilience and anti-fragility.
As for communists or any government's ability to "steal" Bitcoin, you misunderstand the very essence of this technology. Bitcoin represents a shift away from the state's monopoly on violence and financial control. And yes, Obama's apprehension about Bitcoin granting every citizen a "Swiss bank account in their pocket" speaks volumes—not about the feasibility of stopping Bitcoin, but about the threat it poses to centralized control.
Call me unhinged, a conspiracy theorist, or whatever else makes you sleep better at night. But I challenge you, find one "conspiracy" in what I've said. Your discomfort isn't with the truth of my words; it's with the realization that your worldview might be the actual house of cards.
Ten or fifteen years ago I set up an email server on a cheap VPS for myself and my then-boyfriend. It took some doing, but I got it reliable enough that we both used it as our primary email.
Today I'm married to a different person and still administering email for my ex. Out of everything that came of that relationship, I regret the email server the most.
Porn exists in literally every medium human beings have ever used. Sculpture, paintings, photography, phone calls, audio clips, drawings, animations, text, video games, 8mm film, digital video.
If there exists a way to transmit information from one human to another, it has been used for porn.
AI can replace porn stars in exactly the same way that drawn or animated porn does.
for a moment, I've read porn stars as physically stars (which transmit information if you do research)...though there was idk an ai that link stars to do porn-astrology? Or that detect gas clouds that have a porn-compatible shape?
sometimes, a second is long enough to have weird ideas ahahah
It's like someone took C, Python, and Perl, extracted the worst parts of all three and jammed them into one hellish language. There's not one thing about rust syntax that I enjoy. It's probably the worst out of any language I've tried, including Perl.
I would rather read someone else's Perl script than Rust.
It's very much one of these new-age languages that feel the need to reinvent every wheel and invent entirely new syntactical idioms just so they can be different.
And yeah, the "just use rust, pleb" attitude is also super offputting. I'm not interested in dealing with people like that when I'm learning a language. I have plenty of much, much less terrible options.
I can’t take anyone who says the syntax of Rust is worse than Perl.
What new syntactical idioms did Rust invent? It’s pretty plain and easy to read, anyone who has looked at C, C++, Python, C#, Java or anything modern will grok it pretty easily.
lifetimes, async, the myriads of pointer types, that poor-person's monad '?' for a single type..
Sure, you need to give the compiler a lot of hints to achieve what Rust is doing, but it does not look pretty or elegant.
Lifetimes are indeed unique, but hardly take up much syntactical space.
? operator is fine, especially if you’re used to JS or C#, and hardly take up much space.
Pointer types are what, & and * ? Fine if you’re coming from c, c++ and don’t take up much space.
.async is the weirdest for sure, but again hardly strange or disgusting.
What about any of this is worse than if I smashed my face into my keyboard but hit only the $*%#•¥$><~.,!=&@£.?!’ characters, aka writing Perl? Or anything as totally alien as Haskell?
Most Rust I read or write, if I squint, looks like Python with a few extra braces and semicolons.
I was thinking of things like Box, Rc, Arc, Cell, Refcell. Then there is also the macro language, which integrates Scheme concepts. Like C++, it is a huge language, with extra wrinkles for every new corner case. Again, maybe this all is unavoidable if one wants to have zero cost abstractions. Hopefully, language designers will learn from Rust and come up with something more elegant.
Out of those, Box is the only one that is, and the way that it is is not syntax: it has one exception, and that’s that you can move the contents out of it via a dereference. That’s making existing syntax semantically valid, not introducing new syntax.
In terms of syntax, you create a box with Box::new just like you might any other struct.
EDIT: anyway I'm not saying that means that your underlying issue isn't real, just that I think describing it as "syntax" makes the issue confusing to understand. It sounds to me like maybe you think Rust programs are too verbose?
Sure, "let foo = bar" is one of the worst things any language can do.
Let is redundant, that's what the = is for. Unless it's meant to be equivalent to 'var' or 'auto', in which case it's even worse.
Let contains no information, it's pointless clutter that replaced something that did contain vital information. Let tells you the next symbol is a variable. What type? Who knows and who cares, it's a variable, deal with it. C marks a symbol as a variable by using its type name.
I mean, this was a very large part of why Perl is so miserable. I will never understand why people choose to implement this in modern languages.
Anyway, variables and parameters without explicit, visible type information is a hard no for me. I took a sniff of a couple rust projects, saw this mess, and decided that rust is not for me. I don't care about all the other magical benefits that cure all my ails, this feature is a dealbreaker, full stop.
`let` defines a new binding, as opposed to changing the value of an existing binding. You can't remove `let` to keep only `=` because it has a different use case.
Not indicating the type is idiomatic in Rust, but you can annotate it:
let commit_message: String = repo.head().peel_to_commit().ok()?.message()?.into();
Here this is useful to specify the type `into` should convert to. However, if rewritten as:
let commit_message = repo.head().peel_to_commit().ok()?.message()?.to_string();
Then it is useless because we're already specifying the type of the variable by using `to_string`.
Note that IDEs are displaying type hints anyway (without you having to type them), so you don't have to suffer if walking through a codebase where people are annotating their types too little for comfort
I can just get any quality of any movie or show. It might take hours or days for obscure stuff to pop up, but mainstream media is usually downloaded in ten minutes. Then it lives in my jellyfin server where my husband and I can watch at any time anywhere.
It's been really nice. I was dismayed at first that there's no function to browse, only search for specific titles. But after a few weeks I think this is the right decision. I have to specifically seek out what I want, which has greatly reduced the amount of utter trash being consumed.
It's really nice. It's an actually pleasant experience when it works well. Netflix is more consistent than my multilayered stack of server containers, but Netflix is pure agony to use no matter how stable it is.
Piracy is now an order of magnitude easier than paying for something. Even if you do pay for something anymore, it's usually a license that can be revoked at any time with no notice or refund. Why would I even waste my time with that?
I even went and disabled web search in the registry and it still takes forever.
It's also terrible. "Fr" will find FreeCAD, the program I want. "Fre" pulls up "advanced system settings" because there's some subsection about free disk space. "Free" brings back FreeCAD.
Every single thing I do that involves any level of interaction with Windows has found some way of pissing me off.
Linux has never given me a notification that says "you previously removed this search box from your taskbar, but we put it back. You're welcome"
Paraphrased, but this actually happened on my work machine a few months ago. This kind of bullshit and bald faced disrespect is why I haven't used windows at home in years.
It doesn't take nation-state resources to kill a random civilian. It's a few tens of thousands of dollars. Even a few million is basically nothing to a corporation like this.