There was an experimental PR that treats proc macros as idempotent with the corresponding colpike speed up. I don't know what happened with it, and stabilization required a lot of design work to not break backcompat. But this is something in the team's radar.
Would it be possible to do somethign like editions for proc macros, or have crates establish "this is a v2 proc macro" or something? There are a lot of things I'd love to see change in a v2 but it'd all be breaking.
Idempotent as in if the token stream in the input doesn't change, the cached result of the previous macro expansion is used during incremental, instead of being pessimistic and rerunning the macro.
To add to the other replies, Firefox was explicitly never going to consume all of Servo. It was always meant to be a test bed project where sub-projects could be migrated to Firefox. I suspect that the long term intent might have been for Servo to get to a point where it could become Firefox, but that wasn't the stated plan.
The companies relying on cloudflare won't be in Spain. If you buy a GPS tracker by a Canadian company, developed in India, manufactured in China, they are unlikely to know, even it they cared, that a single country that accounts for a tiny percentage of their sales breaks fundamental internet infrastructure on the regular "because fútbol y dinero".
And when purchasing a product, there's no "bill of materials" telling you about the services it relies on, beyond "internet connection" at best.
I'm not saying this situation isn't bullshit, but the bigger problem is that CloudFlare is now "fundamental internet infrastructure". This is precisely the situation that the internet was designed to prevent.
Yesterday I got stuck in endless CloudFlare CAPTCHA's, trying to access theretroweb.com. I had to give up. Many such cases. I hate CloudFlare so much, it's unreal.
> This is precisely the situation that the internet was designed to prevent
Right, but on the other hand, our constitution and laws are supposed to give us the rights to access a internet where the government cannot block entire companies who host websites, because a few bad websites are hosted there.
Not to mention all us freelancers, contractors and just in general computing users, who sometimes want to continue working although 90% of the country is watching football, we should be able to do so even if pirates use Cloudflare for shitty stuff.
I agree that Cloudflare sucks, people should avoid defaulting to putting Cloudflare in front of absolutely everything they do and I too get stuck at the CAPTCHAs sometimes. But that doesn't remove the fact that Cloudflare, just like every other lawful company, should be allowed to be visited during La Liga matches.
The LaLiga post seem to accuse Cloudflare of unlawful activity directly by protecting criminals, not just the illegal streamers. At least my reading (of Google translation) is that they target Cloudflare here and it works "as expected" since Cloudflare is the bad guys.
It takes very little money to rent massive botnet capacity to perform crippling DDOS attacks. Unfortunately there are only very few CDNs capable of absorbing that kind of attack.
I’d happily use anything else, but it (with CF Tunnels and its DDoS and caching systems) is what lets me self host on my little home server on today’s internet. Would gladly move to some other system (or systems)
I think lots of countries block Cloudflare whole-sale.
Laundering IP addresses for (or against) shady purposes is, in fact, Cloudflare's whole business. It's a wonder Cloudflare isn't being blocked more often.
> and I would really say this means something closer to 17% of the most popular Rust package versions are either unbuildable or have some weird quirks that make building them not work the way you expect
No, what it means is that the source in crates.io doesn't match 1:1 with any commit sha in their project's repo. This is usually because some gitignored file ended up as part of the distributed package, or poor release practice.
This doesn't mean that the project can't build, or that it is being exploited (but it is a signal to look closer).
Not only this, but the reason we can check what the discrepancy is is because crates.io distributes source code, not binaries, so they can always be inspected. In the end, whats in crates.io is the source of truth.
Paradoxically, given their otherwise positive standing, Lenovo has keept allowlists on their BIOS for specific devices on specific ports. For example, I have a T460 that has an m2 slot that only works with two specific WWAN modules.
> And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy.
When was that? Because in 1977 they defended Nazi's free speech to demonstrate in a town that had jewish people as half its population so it tried to block them, and I don't recall them doing anything nearly that controversial since.
> They now take sides on what speech should be allowed.
Alternative framing: Given limited resources and lots of things to care about, they pick the specific cases that best improve the freedoms they're interested in protecting.
In the case of the Second Amendment, they decided to let the NRA handle it, as that seems to be working just fine.
A disingenuous take. The ACLU has actively published anti-2A literature in the past, arguing (as all such arguments must) that only the police, government, and military forces should have access to effective weapons.
Sure. But there's 100 shitty people and you have to pick one or two.
So maybe you pick the anti-ICE protester instead of the Nazi to help out. Both got shot with pepper balls, both had their rights infringed upon. Why not pick the one who isn't a complete ass to establish the same precedent with?
I agree 100%, I’d rather the ACLU picked their battles and if there’s a choice, not pick a Nazi. But I’m not a huge fan about how they’ve explicitly said they won’t defend hate speech. It’s a betrayal of their original cause.
2023: "We joined Young Americans for Freedom, the Cato Institute, and other unlikely partners in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in its challenge to New York’s new law regulating 'hateful conduct' in social media."
2017: the ACLU defends Milo Yiannopoulos' right to advertise his new book. They file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting a Tea Party supporter challenging a ban on wearing political insignia at polling places.
2018: the ACLU supports the NRA's First Amendment challenge to Governor Cuomo's attempt to convince NY financial institutions not to do business with the NRA.
2019: they defended a conservative student magazine which was denied funding by UCSD.
2020: they filed a brief supporting antisemitic protestors picketing a synagogue on the Sabbath. They also supported a Catholic school's religious right to make religious-based choices in hiring and firing teachers.
I'm just quoting the fruits of five minutes of research here, so I won't go on (but there's more). Is it possible that you're reacting to the radical conservative stereotyping of the ACLU rather than the actual actions of the organization?
It's very possible that I'm misinformed, but if so it was mostly from reading 'radical conservatives' like the NYT and other related reporting, along with ex-ACLU lawyers. [0]
Blocking people that annoy him on Twitter is the only humanizing thing about him. Deciding that someone has annoyed you enough on that platform that you don't care to ever hear from them ever again is the only thing that made that platform usable when you have any minimal audience.
"I've known you for all of 10 seconds and enjoyed not a single one of them" followed by blocking is good, actually. That doesn't make you any more correct or wrong, of course.
reply