Do you have any example code? It's plain to see that Zig's comptime is powerful enough for typeclasses, but it's not at all obvious that it'd be as ergonomic as Haskell's typeclasses.
I don't have any particular examples in hand, but the question you're asking is one that's tough to answer because the languages that might be as ergonomic as Haskell in that regard and are also low-level are significantly more complex than either Haskell or Zig, and so I don't think we have a good point of comparison (I think Zig is revolutionary). There is definitely a price to pay for being a high-control/low-level language, and it certainly requires that you spend some of your "complexity budget" on things that high-level languages like Haskell or Java don't have to. But I think Zig shows that you can be both low-level and reasonably "expressive" without also being so much more complex than most high-level languages.
It obviously isn't as safe as Rust, but I think it works well enough for something like gamedev(where absolute safety isn't required).
For memory related issues I find it sufficient.
One aspect where it is probably not as good as Rust is for threading related issues, as it relies on inserting runtime checks which may or may not trigger depending on the number of threads attempting access.
> You lose soundness, but we don't have sound guarantees for functional correctness, anyway
This sounds like "we can't guarantee the most important thing, so it's unclear whether it's useful to guarantee this other thing," but that's a bizarre statement, so am I misinterpreting?
It means that there's a complex tradeoff between making sound guarantees and providing correctness in other ways, a tradeoff that all languages make anyway, each finding its own preferred sweet spot, and that we don't know if, say, Rust's sweet spot yields better correctness than Zig's.
I'd say News Corp (Fox News, Sky News, NY Post, etc.) ranks pretty high on the list of damaging companies, and this law was clearly written to benefit them.
I don't think Google News displays ads on result pages, just the title + thumbnail. Why should they pay for displaying these links when they don't earn anything on them, it doesn't make business sense.
As for news discovered by regular search, I think that is different because the user has to input specific search keywords and restrict to recent results. The difference is about intention and recurring visits.
The situation seems similar to the Google Books fiasco, where we didn't end up with a searchable online library of out of print books. Lots of arguments were raised back then as now, but the bottom line was that everyone tried to do good for himself and we all got less - the prisoner's dilemma in action.
If it didn't make business sense then Google wouldn't be showing them in the first place. It plainly does make business sense. Google shouldn't be afraid to pay for what it uses.
I think this is about crony capitalism. The old mates want to have their cake and eat it too and get paid as well, and their mates are making that happen.
Just the fact that the ABC and SBS are excluded says it all really. This is clearly not about journalism.
To quote the ACCC chair: “We note that 88 smaller media businesses teamed up to submit a joint submission as part of the process of developing the code. Under our plan, these businesses could again work together to negotiate with the platforms over fair payment for their content.”'
You really are failing to understand this. You must try harder.
I understand and it's ridiculous. Just because your business is not profitable shouldn't mean another business should be forced to subsidise it. Unless you have mates that can make laws, that is.
If they believe that Google should compensate them then they can already demand that Google stop linking their pages, and then bargain with Google the ordinary way. Why is it fair or necessary to add extra laws here?
> This money would go to an organisation which largely peddles outrage and division.
Frankly that's Google, Facebook, and Twitter. They are aimed at maximising engagement and outrage does that for them. They keep feeding people what they think they want to see and the further down the rabbit hole they go the weirder and more extreme it gets.
Good point, but bad example. Fourier developed his transform for the sole purpose of attacking the heat equation, which is definitely quite a physically important problem!
This is also not the case in many real life examples of trans friends who readily are outgoing and make friends I see and know. I believe they were using that quote from something above that was mentioned as being a quote from autism spectrum disorder, and they were using it as a parallel. It's also not the case in many autistic friends, though. I know many close friends on the spectrum that are loud, outgoing and make friends very readily.
They usually don't quite look like their gender of choice landing them in somewhat of an uncanny valley. Me or you will have an instinctive negative reaction to them which will then have to be overcome. Of course that doesn't mean they never make any friends. But that is not what is being said. What is being said is they will have more unsuccessful attempts than the average person.
> They usually don't quite look like their gender of choice
This is confirmation bias. You notice people who don't look like you think they should look. You then think those people are trans, and when you check a few it turns out they are trans. You've confirmed your bias, and now you think it's true.
What you haven't taken into account is all the people who don't fit this pattern: athletic black women who were born female and identify as female but who are assumed to be transwomen (see all the conspiracy theories around Michelle Obama or the Williams sisters), or the people who do pass well that you're just not aware of.
