In my opinion, it's better to learn C first because it forces you to do a lot of painful memory management manually. You tend to really appreciates Rust's features when you understand how things can go wrong. Need absence to value presence.

I kinda disagree, I learned assembly after I learned C and I felt like I still appreciated it

can you please share how you actually learned assembly and the resources you've used for it?

It was in college, had a couple of courses that involves writing some things in assembly. There's not a lot to assembly, but when you write it you realize how function calls involve a bunch of arbitrary choices, and the stack is part of the c runtime, etc. I definitely wouldn't call myself an expert, but the experience was illuminating coming from the world of higher level languages.

It might not be wise to accuse people of having an "agenda", when the only source cited is a Guardian article (which is known to have a bias).

The debate around culpability is vast, nuanced and cannot be settled with reductionist claims like "Churchill was the reason millions died".

> It might not be wise to accuse people of having an "agenda"

It would be wise to read the comment more carefully before replying. I explicitly did not accuse or suggest anyone of having an agenda, unlike the person I responded to.

> The debate around culpability is vast, nuanced and cannot be settled with reductionist claims like "Churchill was the reason millions died".

I had stated "Churchill's active role in causing the famine" and linked to a guardian article headlined "Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine". There is plenty of supporting evidence supporting both statements in the linked article. If you disagree, I'd be happy to see your supporting evidence, as opposed to unsubstantiated accusations of reductionism.

Would be interesting to see the visitors by country (per capita) version too.

Is that a red herring?

The contention here is that one country does not allow the other to do business in their territory, yet complains when their product is threatened with a ban.

The contention is _not_ that double standards are being applied to TikTok vis-a-vis FB/Twitter.

Censorship is bad. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't see why banning Facebook in China makes banning TikTok in the US good. It's like saying:

White people are discriminated against in China, so we should discriminate against Chinese people in the US.

I'm not sure if banning foreign businesses is "censorship".

But if you insist on calling money "speech" and banning foreign businesses "censorship" then it turns out, under your very broad definitions, censorship is sometimes a very good thing!

Your argument amounts to word games.

TikTok is not being banned because of what they say, they're being banned for what they are. Ergo it's not censorship.

Same thing when RT was banned across Western Europe. It's not what they were saying that was banned, it's what they are: an arm of the Russian government. Russian shills are still free to peddle their propaganda.

Sometimes two wrongs don't make a right. Sometimes you fight fire with fire. We can all pull aphorisms out of our butts to support our side of the argument.

Perhaps it depends on the audience. For a non-CS person, it's a pretty good introduction to solvability vs verifiability, and how seemingly similar math operations are quite asymmetric.

I personally might use the example to convey the concept to non-CS people.

The redesign does not look good. The colour scheme just defies logic and big rounded buttons don't improve usability in any way.

Why has Google sworn to let down a large chunk of its users? I understand that companies need to innovate to keep their edge, but what is this redesign supposed to achieve?

It feels like this is a mindset across the industry. Everything seems to moving away from customization-- no "I prefer the old UI", no "I want these accessibility/shortcut tools", no "this theming (more complex than the occasional dark-mode toggle) helps with my workflow", no "let me see real error messages instead of oopsie-daisy cop-outs".

The overall narrative is infantilization of the customer. It's not like our customers are doing something important with our products, or have specific needs or tastes. They're just undifferentiated blobs that can be slid through whatever KPI-tracking funnel we want them to run through this week.

I wonder if this is just the natural evolution of the hyperscale business-- when "everyone" is your potential audience, the median/mean customer becomes a nontechnical user with no expectations, and so you end up with business decisions that wouldn't fly at a more focused "tools for professionals" business.

It could also be a matter of user count/growth focused metrics; as you go searching for that second billion users, an obvious path to go down is to continually dumb-down the product to make sure that it presents no obstacle to anyone signing on, even if the overall value they generate is lessened.

I am continually disappointed at the lack of "graduated" interfaces, where you can choose to unlock customization or advanced tools if you need it. It's not like trillion-dollar firms don't have the R&D budget for it, but they seemingly lack the incentive structure.

A product manager's promotion.

> I understand that companies need to innovate to keep their edge

This is fine if a user can opt out of the “innovation”. Fortunately things like old.reddit.com and https://mail.google.com/mail/u/ exist. The major downside is both of those truly are frozen in time and don’t get features that I do want backported (reactive layout, for example).

We’re in a weird period of time for computing where you can’t go back in time and relive an experience. I can boot up a Windows 98 machine with a Sidewinder game pad and play pinball like I did 25 years ago. I can’t (ever again?) view my iOS lock screen with the same font that was used just 4 months ago. FOSS + desktop applications may be the only ecosystems that allow the clock to be rolled back.

Don’t say it.

Isn't crypto plagued with the same problems? Sure fiat isn't perfect but it doesn't look like crypto is solving any of those problems, as exemplified here.