From what I read, blocking sunlight can hurt yields even more than the higher temperatures.

What's that have to do with it being a sovereign state? By that standard, neither Russia nor China are sovereign states.

And it's not like the US gives a shit about democracy outside its borders. The CIA overthrew Jacobo Árbenz in the 50s, supported the military coup in Brazil in 1964, pinochet and Hugo Banzer in the 70s. This is normal behavior for the US in Latin America. It's nothing to do with concern for Venezuela's citizens.

I think we can agree it's uncomfortable to read though: the font is too small, for instance. I had to use Firefox's reader mode.

Depends on your age. I remember being warned in my 20s that older people couldn't read 10pt font, 12pt was a stretch, I didn't really believe them.

Now I'm in my 40s, oh wow. Small, illegible, font is everywhere. Instructions on food is especially bad for this. At least on the computer you can usually force 125% font rendering.

Point being, the site is probably quite legible to people in their 20s.

You could scale it to 120%, font would become more readable and it would even remove the text overlap with the tilted image in part three. At 100% font looks similar in size to the one on HN, but a bit less readable, I agree.

It shows, I have to kill it forcefully over 10 times per day.

If the state "confiscated" wealth derived from capital (AI) would that be OK with you?

A part of that figure is an artifact of how strong the dollar is though.

If it were just a "hormone and brain chemistry issue" there wouldn't be huge differences across populations that can't be attributed to only genetic factors.

Many of these are against public bodies... Hundreds of pages with lawyers back and forth for in the end money going from one part of the government to another...

No it isn't. Just gave some context to it (purpose) and copied into it some 250 lines of code I know has some bugs someone looking more or less closely would find and asked to evaluate its correctness. It did not find any of the problems and reported 5 supposed problems that don't exist.

4.5 is not trained on code. And it shows. It is however to my eyes more fluid, thoughtful, has better theory of mind. It's like someone scaled up GPT-4, and I really like it.

You don't know how smart OP is

I give a similar task when I interview SWE candidates: about half cannot find any bugs (and sometimes see bugs where there are none), despite years of claimed experience in the language/domain.

I don't think this is true. Rust has constraints that C/C++ doesn't have. For instance, it's undefined behavior to create more than one exclusive (mutable) reference to the same object or to create one where a shared reference already exists. This is not necessarily easy to ensure.

The aliasing rules in C are much more lax: you only can't have several pointers of different types pointing to the same object, except if one of them is a character pointer (ignoring the restrict keyword, which is opt-in and rarely used).

I don't think this is quite the same comparison. In Rust, multiple mutable pointers to the same object can exist at the same time. So, it's similar to C in this way. It is mutable references that must be exclusive.

It's besides the point whether C pointers are more similar to Rust pointers or references. It's even true that pointers BY THEMSELVES have fewer constraints in Rust than in C . It's in the interaction between pointers and references that it's very easy to trigger undefined behavior in Rust.

Besides the fact I already mentioned about the dangers of casting pointers to references, there's also the problem that pointers are only valid as long as no operations are done with references to the same object (no interleaving). On top of it, the autoborrowing rules make it so it's not always clear when a reference is being taken (and operated upon).

So yes, in my opinion _unsafe_ Rust is significantly more difficult to get right than C.