Why is this only a problem on mobile? Why doesn’t desktop have similar requirements?

Yea, definitely. Also just the fact that you’re here says a lot. I don’t think you can find many (if any) of these “normal” users on the fediverse.

Basically, any time a UI hops in front of you and goes ‘Wait! This is important!’ people get annoyed

It honestly baffles me how this keeps being a thing. Not just for OSs but for a lot of websites too. And the wild thing is that most of the time, it’s not even that important and the user does not and should not care about it.

would be a good thing if you could ensure every user would be guaranteed to not be greeted with any issues upon reboot from said update.

Honestly this sounds like it’d be so far in the future that it’s not even realistic to contemplate right now. We’re clearly not even close to this being the reality.

You’re not alone, I’ve been screaming into the void about this for a long time too. People keep saying “Linux is user friendly enough these days for even non techy people” and I’m sorry but it’s totally not.

I think most Linux users just don’t realize how technologically illiterate most people are. Most people can barely use a browser and send emails. They absolutely don’t want to mess with anything related to “updates” that they have no idea wtf is doing to their system anyway.

The borrow checker

This is indeed pretty unique.

the way it handles exceptions and nulls

This is really just the fact that Rust has sum types - but those kinds of types have been used in many functional languages (Haskell for example) for a long time.

the way it handles stack/heap

This is just the same as C and C++ and any other low-level language that requires you to distinguish between the stack and heap.

composition pattern instead of oop

I mean if you’re only looking at OOP languages then this will be new, but functional languages have done this for a long time.

So yea, I think a big part of what makes Rust great is that it has managed to take these really, really good ideas from functional programming languages and made them work in a language that is not entirely functional. This leads to a perfect blend/best of both worlds with regards to OOP and functional programming :)

I honestly think they’d understand it about as much as they’d currently understand it - that is, not understanding it very much at all. So I think it would be about the same level of understanding but it would make a lot more sense and would be easier to calculate with.

It’d also remove a lot of incentives for squeezing your income/pension contribution to align with certain thresholds (i.e. tax bracket thresholds).

For example, a sigmoid function (click link for equation). You’d need to mess with the constants to align the function with a range of incomes but the general shape will be the same - a low, almost-zero taxation rate for those who earn the least, rising to a threshold (perhaps even 100%, but a lower value like 75% would probably work as well), giving a high taxation to those who earn the most.

Honestly I don’t trust these old, slow standards organizations to do well at designing programming languages.

Rust has strong backwards compatibility guarantees so it definitely should.

If there is anything I’ve learned in my 10+ years as an engineer, it’s that there are no good or bad languages, just pros and cons of each in different applications.

I dunno if I agree really - the more languages I’ve learned, the more I see an evolution from less sophisticated, less usable languages to more sophisticated, more usable, modern and just generally better languages.

C and C++ are old, and you can tell. There’s so much complexity and legacy in those languages that it’s crazy. But it’s not just legacy - it’s also bad design choices. There’s a lot of really bad APIs and bad usability and footguns everywhere. You see the same thing in languages like JavaScript (whose design journey has been fraught with peril). Even Java has some bad stuff I would say, mostly from the overzealous insistence on OOP.

However, if you look at some modern languages that were more deliberately designed, you really start to see how they are just intrinsically better. Python, while still being a dynamically typed scripting language which I would never use for large systems, is still leagues better than JavaScript in terms of design and usability I would say. Haskell was born from research and you can really tell - the language just makes sense in a very scientific way - although that does mean ease of use and developer experience has not always been the priority.

Rust was developed for a very particular purpose, basically to provide the same speed as C++ but without any undefined behavior. From that design principle, a lot of good has resulted and Rust is basically an objectively better language than C++. The only thing still keeping C++ in the game is the historical reasons, just due to the sheer amount of code that exists out there in C++. C++ has more support in all kinds of places, but that’s just due to history and Rust will likely gain ground soon enough. For instance, C++ still rules for game development, but this could change within the next 5 or 10 years.

It’s not that surprising when you think about - languages like Python, Haskell and Rust were built on the giant pile of experience the whole industry has amassed from using previous languages. It also helps that we just have more computing power today to make languages like Rust feasible. Rust compile times probably wouldn’t have been realistic 30 years ago.

Which foreign concepts do Rust use? The borrow checker/ownership is new but that’s really the only thing that doesn’t already exist in some other language.

I’m not speaking against progressive taxation, I’m saying the brackets should be continuous so there aren’t any sharp turns in taxation. Right now the brackets make the taxation discrete, but I feel it should be continuous.

A continuous bracket could be defined by a single equation. You’d plug in your income and you’d get out your taxation. No need to look up what bracket you are in.

Why? To me it’d be much more intuitive. I find brackets quite confusing

Never understood the idea of tax brackets. Why isn’t it just continuous? Computers are calculating the tax now anyway, not like it would be infeasible.

I write down the best price I’ve seen, so it’s not necessarily a common price. But I feel like the lowest price something has been sold for recently is a good baseline to compare sales against.

The good price is 60 DKK per kg, though that price is rare. 80 is more realistic and common.

I don’t really run analysis on the numbers. I just use them when I’m shopping to see if a price is good or not.

I have noticed that at least here in Denmark, it never makes sense to buy butter if it’s not on sale, and some sales are still priced badly.

I keep track of prices in cost per kg (or liter) so I am not fooled by shrinkflation and so that I know when a good sale is, without having to remember all prices. Basically just have a giant spreadsheet with the numbers.