Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

In Rust, error handling is opt-out, not opt-in. Alice Ryhl (Rust for Android at Google, Rust language advisor & Tokio maintainer) explains: “The other thing I think is quite good is error handling. So on one hand, Rust doesn't really use exceptions, so it actually returns the error as... a value. So you return a value that's, using an enum, either the result or the error. And the way this is done is that there's an operator `?` - so you write: my_function and then a question mark at the end - which means if this function fails, return the error. So it's really easy to handle errors but it's not serial characters like it is with exceptions, so it's explicit. On the other hand, if you forget to put the question mark, that's a compilation error. So you have to check it, and of course you can also have it manually, but the point is it's this idea of there are these things where you write some code and there's some implicit error condition you didn't think of and now you just took down your server or something.”show more

The Pragmatic Engineer

45,916 subscribers

52,059 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

So this is the play Adam Jude and alexSSN are asking about. This is a correctly scored a fielder's choice because while the obvious thing is the fielder has to throw home (to prevent the winning run from scoring), the fielder can attempt to just get the out first and then go home. Young is obviously going to be out on this if the first baseman elected to get him out. So this is never a hit. As for balls that fall between fielders not being error, you have to remember Alex that an error is a mechanical misplay. You have to attempt to catch the ball and miss/drop it. When to guys look at each other and go "oops I thoiught you had it" and it falls between them, that's a hit because it's not an error as there is no drop or miss, because no one attempted the catch. Hope that makes sense.

So this is the play Adam Jude and alexSSN are asking about. This is a correctly scored a fielder's choice because while the obvious thing is the fielder has to throw home (to prevent the winning run from scoring), the fielder can attempt to just get the out first and then go home. Young is obviously going to be out on this if the first baseman elected to get him out. So this is never a hit. As for balls that fall between fielders not being error, you have to remember Alex that an error is a mechanical misplay. You have to attempt to catch the ball and miss/drop it. When to guys look at each other and go "oops I thoiught you had it" and it falls between them, that's a hit because it's not an error as there is no drop or miss, because no one attempted the catch. Hope that makes sense.

MLB Scoring Changes

22,943 views • 1 year ago

Wanted to see if this held, but this was ruled an error on the second baseman, and in no way, shape or form, is this an error. This is an infielder racing into the outfield, and this is almost a terrific catch. If you can see the infielder’s full number as she is running into the outfield, that means it’s above ordinary effort. There have been quite a few shaky calls in this #WCWS (as per the usual sadly) but this isn’t an error. Even the announcer went with calling it an error, but this is 100% a hit.

Wanted to see if this held, but this was ruled an error on the second baseman, and in no way, shape or form, is this an error. This is an infielder racing into the outfield, and this is almost a terrific catch. If you can see the infielder’s full number as she is running into the outfield, that means it’s above ordinary effort. There have been quite a few shaky calls in this #WCWS (as per the usual sadly) but this isn’t an error. Even the announcer went with calling it an error, but this is 100% a hit.

MLB Scoring Changes

14,236 views • 2 months ago

Lots of folks wondering why the two plays to Oneil Cruz in the Pittsburgh Pirates at New York Mets game were recorded as hits. Here is the first one, and you can see he misjudges this line drive, and he comes in and then it sails over his head. MIsjudgement is NOT an error, so this correctly went down as a triple. Is it a ball that he needs to catch? Yes. Is it an error? No. An error is a physical misplay, and there is not a physicial misplay here. #LetsGoBucs #LGM

Lots of folks wondering why the two plays to Oneil Cruz in the Pittsburgh Pirates at New York Mets game were recorded as hits. Here is the first one, and you can see he misjudges this line drive, and he comes in and then it sails over his head. MIsjudgement is NOT an error, so this correctly went down as a triple. Is it a ball that he needs to catch? Yes. Is it an error? No. An error is a physical misplay, and there is not a physicial misplay here. #LetsGoBucs #LGM

MLB Scoring Changes

118,748 views • 4 months ago

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Patrick OShaughnessy

33,016 views • 3 months ago

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”

ELON CLIPS

21,519 views • 1 year ago

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 views • 7 months ago

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

Founder Mode

12,339 views • 5 months ago

This is HUGE! Trump just had Stephen Moore in the Oval Office and they went through just how HORRIBLE the BLS data has been. Trump was right to fire the head! "That's a GIGANTIC ERROR, if it was an error, it would one thing. I don't think it's an error. I think they did it purposely."

This is HUGE! Trump just had Stephen Moore in the Oval Office and they went through just how HORRIBLE the BLS data has been. Trump was right to fire the head! "That's a GIGANTIC ERROR, if it was an error, it would one thing. I don't think it's an error. I think they did it purposely."

Gunther Eagleman™

107,781 views • 11 months ago

Thomas Frank on Mikel Arteta: "I think it's a good example of a club that sticks to the process. I think six years, it's very rare you get that long in football. I also think it's fair to say that it took probably three seasons for Arteta. So the fourth season, that's where he competed, now he's in the seventh season. So he was really, really ready to compete in his fourth season. So he took over, then two full seasons, then the fourth one. So I think that's how you should see it. And then we know the difference between having ultimate success to win something or not is like this, and you need margins. But the process is the most important thing." 🤝

Thomas Frank on Mikel Arteta: "I think it's a good example of a club that sticks to the process. I think six years, it's very rare you get that long in football. I also think it's fair to say that it took probably three seasons for Arteta. So the fourth season, that's where he competed, now he's in the seventh season. So he was really, really ready to compete in his fourth season. So he took over, then two full seasons, then the fourth one. So I think that's how you should see it. And then we know the difference between having ultimate success to win something or not is like this, and you need margins. But the process is the most important thing." 🤝

Hayters TV

410,675 views • 8 months ago

Justin Thomas was asked about his group getting put on the clock: "We just didn't really agree with it. ... The hard part to me with the whole pace of play thing is that you, there's so much that goes into golf and there's so much that goes into hole to hole in terms of, are you hitting it close, are you able to tap it in, or you have to mark it, stuff like that, to where, are you holding the group up or are you not, to where it's very hard to make that call. And we just didn't agree with it, to be honest. "But we got taken off, and a hole later we were caught up. So it kind of goes to our point of why we didn't think we should of, but it is what it is. It's a part of it."

Justin Thomas was asked about his group getting put on the clock: "We just didn't really agree with it. ... The hard part to me with the whole pace of play thing is that you, there's so much that goes into golf and there's so much that goes into hole to hole in terms of, are you hitting it close, are you able to tap it in, or you have to mark it, stuff like that, to where, are you holding the group up or are you not, to where it's very hard to make that call. And we just didn't agree with it, to be honest. "But we got taken off, and a hole later we were caught up. So it kind of goes to our point of why we didn't think we should of, but it is what it is. It's a part of it."

Cameron Jourdan

619,229 views • 2 months ago

Ok, I'm not gonna lie, it's plays like this that make me question having my DMs open. It's obvious the folks asking me about this play in the Houston Astros and Texas Rangers game are either daily fantasy players, or gamblers, so I'll use this as an educational post. This is NEVER an error. This play where Brice Matthews is on the dead run, leaping to save a home run, and nearly making a SportsCenter Top-10 (this would have been No. 1) play is NOT an error. This is way, way, way beyond ordinary effort. An error is a dropping of the ball or a misplay in which the average fielder is expected to make the physical catch at that position, using ordinary effort. There is nothing ordinary about this. This is ALWAYS a hit. ALWAYS.

Ok, I'm not gonna lie, it's plays like this that make me question having my DMs open. It's obvious the folks asking me about this play in the Houston Astros and Texas Rangers game are either daily fantasy players, or gamblers, so I'll use this as an educational post. This is NEVER an error. This play where Brice Matthews is on the dead run, leaping to save a home run, and nearly making a SportsCenter Top-10 (this would have been No. 1) play is NOT an error. This is way, way, way beyond ordinary effort. An error is a dropping of the ball or a misplay in which the average fielder is expected to make the physical catch at that position, using ordinary effort. There is nothing ordinary about this. This is ALWAYS a hit. ALWAYS.

MLB Scoring Changes

139,599 views • 17 days ago

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."

DogeDesigner

83,775 views • 1 year ago

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."

DogeDesigner

199,271 views • 1 year ago

Why is Rust different than many/most programming languages? Alice Ryhl works on Google's Android Rust team, is a Rust language team advisor, and is a core maintainer of Tokio (the most widely-used async runtime in Rust) Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 04:09 Tokio: an overview 05:11 What Alice likes about Rust 12:48 Rust for TypeScript engineers 13:51 Moving from C++ to Rust 14:34 Memory safety 18:12 Garbage collection tradeoffs 21:46 Ownership, references, and borrowing 26:59 Unsafe in Rust 31:21 Crates and Cargo 35:55 Language design and RFCs 43:02 Building new features 46:30 Editions vs. versions 49:47 Getting paid to work on Rust 51:27 Contributing to Rust 53:03 Rust in the Linux kernel 55:45 AI use cases for Rust 1:01:35 Learning Rust 1:03:54 Book recommendation Brought to you by: • Antithesis – verify your system’s correctness without human review or traditional integration tests – and avoid bugs or outages. • Sentry – application monitoring software considered “not bad” by millions of developers Three things worth knowing about Rust: 1. Rust was designed to turn implicit failures into compile errors. Where other languages allow you to forget something, Rust makes an omission into a compilation error for things like null checks, uninitialized variables, or error propagation with the ‘?’ character. If you mess something up, it’s almost certain your program will not compile. If it does, at the very least you should see a lint warning. 2. Refactoring in Rust is safe and easy, thanks to the compiler. Alice: “I change a return type or struct field, then just fix the compiler errors until the compiler stops shouting. And then once I’ve done that, I’ve updated every place I need to update.” Rust’s focus on correctness makes refactoring it more straightforward than dynamically-typed languages and Java-style typed ones are to refactor. 3. “Editions” allow Rust to make breaking changes without ‘breaking’ anyone’s code. Rust editions (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024) can be mixed freely across crates. A library on the 2021 edition works seamlessly with a binary on the 2024 edition. This is how Rust evolves syntax (like adding async/await as keywords) without forcing an ecosystem-wide migration. Thanks a lot, Alice for this great discussion! And for your work on Rust.

Why is Rust different than many/most programming languages? Alice Ryhl works on Google's Android Rust team, is a Rust language team advisor, and is a core maintainer of Tokio (the most widely-used async runtime in Rust) Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 04:09 Tokio: an overview 05:11 What Alice likes about Rust 12:48 Rust for TypeScript engineers 13:51 Moving from C++ to Rust 14:34 Memory safety 18:12 Garbage collection tradeoffs 21:46 Ownership, references, and borrowing 26:59 Unsafe in Rust 31:21 Crates and Cargo 35:55 Language design and RFCs 43:02 Building new features 46:30 Editions vs. versions 49:47 Getting paid to work on Rust 51:27 Contributing to Rust 53:03 Rust in the Linux kernel 55:45 AI use cases for Rust 1:01:35 Learning Rust 1:03:54 Book recommendation Brought to you by: • Antithesis – verify your system’s correctness without human review or traditional integration tests – and avoid bugs or outages. • Sentry – application monitoring software considered “not bad” by millions of developers Three things worth knowing about Rust: 1. Rust was designed to turn implicit failures into compile errors. Where other languages allow you to forget something, Rust makes an omission into a compilation error for things like null checks, uninitialized variables, or error propagation with the ‘?’ character. If you mess something up, it’s almost certain your program will not compile. If it does, at the very least you should see a lint warning. 2. Refactoring in Rust is safe and easy, thanks to the compiler. Alice: “I change a return type or struct field, then just fix the compiler errors until the compiler stops shouting. And then once I’ve done that, I’ve updated every place I need to update.” Rust’s focus on correctness makes refactoring it more straightforward than dynamically-typed languages and Java-style typed ones are to refactor. 3. “Editions” allow Rust to make breaking changes without ‘breaking’ anyone’s code. Rust editions (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024) can be mixed freely across crates. A library on the 2021 edition works seamlessly with a binary on the 2024 edition. This is how Rust evolves syntax (like adding async/await as keywords) without forcing an ecosystem-wide migration. Thanks a lot, Alice for this great discussion! And for your work on Rust.

Gergely Orosz

51,776 views • 2 months ago

EVERYONE needs to be aware how SIGNIFICANT the Wisconsin Supreme Court election is This election decides who controls The House of Representatives and Voter ID Elon Musk “The single biggest challenge, I think is actually just making people aware that there is this very important election. There's both the very important election for Judge Schimel as well as the deciding on, on adding voter ID to the Wisconsin Constitution institution, which is very, very important. So it's quite shocking ,you can sort of tell where voter fraud is happening, where they ban id, you know, like why would you ban, ID like in New York and California, it's like illegal to show idea at an election. Well, why would, I can't imagine why that would be the case…. So, two really important things is to ensure judicial integrity on Tuesday and then the voter ID thing It's April Fool's Day. So I think most people aren't aware, like I said, most people aren't aware that there is this important election, but there most people don't even know that there's an election at all. Or if they do, they aren't sure exactly when and where it is. — They don't realize just how important it is. They think it, it's, well it's just, you know, some kind of judicial thing that's not that important. But it actually, what they're doing, what's happening on Tuesday is a vote for the, the which party controls the U.S house of House of Representatives. That is why it is so, so significant and whichever party controls the house, to a significant degree controls the country, which then steers the course of Western civilization. So it's like, I feel like this is one of those things that, that may not seem that it's gonna affect the entire destiny of humanity, — it's a super, it's a super big deal. The fact that I'm here in person, like I'm not phoning it in. I'm here in person”

EVERYONE needs to be aware how SIGNIFICANT the Wisconsin Supreme Court election is This election decides who controls The House of Representatives and Voter ID Elon Musk “The single biggest challenge, I think is actually just making people aware that there is this very important election. There's both the very important election for Judge Schimel as well as the deciding on, on adding voter ID to the Wisconsin Constitution institution, which is very, very important. So it's quite shocking ,you can sort of tell where voter fraud is happening, where they ban id, you know, like why would you ban, ID like in New York and California, it's like illegal to show idea at an election. Well, why would, I can't imagine why that would be the case…. So, two really important things is to ensure judicial integrity on Tuesday and then the voter ID thing It's April Fool's Day. So I think most people aren't aware, like I said, most people aren't aware that there is this important election, but there most people don't even know that there's an election at all. Or if they do, they aren't sure exactly when and where it is. — They don't realize just how important it is. They think it, it's, well it's just, you know, some kind of judicial thing that's not that important. But it actually, what they're doing, what's happening on Tuesday is a vote for the, the which party controls the U.S house of House of Representatives. That is why it is so, so significant and whichever party controls the house, to a significant degree controls the country, which then steers the course of Western civilization. So it's like, I feel like this is one of those things that, that may not seem that it's gonna affect the entire destiny of humanity, — it's a super, it's a super big deal. The fact that I'm here in person, like I'm not phoning it in. I'm here in person”

Wall Street Apes

51,280 views • 1 year ago

🚨WEIRD PLAY ALERT🚨 This is from tonight's Atlanta Braves at Miami Marlins game. This was originally scored a triple and an error, and almost immediately changed to an error on the right fielder and a throwing error on the center fielder. The original error on the rright fielder was for colliding with the center fielder as it looked like he had the ball. However, this was changed back to a triple and an error, as you have both fielders on a dead sprint back into right center. While yes, it might be a catch, the catch itself, and the play, is well above ordinary effort. The collision error isn't for this type of play, but a play where a fielder is situated where he can field the ball with ordinary effort and gets run into, with the ball getting knocked out, so this was changed after a review after the game but before stats were posted.

🚨WEIRD PLAY ALERT🚨 This is from tonight's Atlanta Braves at Miami Marlins game. This was originally scored a triple and an error, and almost immediately changed to an error on the right fielder and a throwing error on the center fielder. The original error on the rright fielder was for colliding with the center fielder as it looked like he had the ball. However, this was changed back to a triple and an error, as you have both fielders on a dead sprint back into right center. While yes, it might be a catch, the catch itself, and the play, is well above ordinary effort. The collision error isn't for this type of play, but a play where a fielder is situated where he can field the ball with ordinary effort and gets run into, with the ball getting knocked out, so this was changed after a review after the game but before stats were posted.

MLB Scoring Changes

10,917 views • 2 months ago

Important: Who is Opposing the UAPDA? "It's staff! And it's like, who elected you? You were not elected!" ~Burlison "I cannot believe that I am sponsoring the language that Senator Schumer also is sponsoring." ~Burlison ~ Burlison: "We're trying to get UAP Disclosure Acts put on the National Defense Authorization Act. We are facing difficulties, and I mean, it's so frustrating, because it's not members [of Congress]. I don't, at least, if it is members, they're not coming to me and saying, 'Hey, I'm not allowing your amendment.' "It's staff! And it's like, who elected you? You were not elected!' I mean, for you to be able to deny an elected official whose...my job is to answer to the people, and you're gonna deny me the ability to get this amendment, at least even offered, is unacceptable. "And so, right now we're trying to get that made in order, so that when it comes to the floor, at least we get an opportunity to have a vote on the UAP Disclosure Act! And then you'll know who supports it and who doesn't. "But I've gotta get the Intelligence Committee to approve that. And, so any help, André Carson, would be greatly appreciated. If you could lean on our chairman and others, that would be fantastic, but we've gotta get it made in order. And if we get out of the House, I think that we're halfway there. "And then we'll...I think we've got allies in the Senate, whether it'. And I cannot believe that I am sponsoring the language that Senator Schumer also is sponsoring (laughter and applause). But what's right is right, and truth is truth. And we're all Americans, and that's why this is such a common-sense thing. And the only thing that's gonna stop it is these staffers who are killing things behind the scenes in the cover of darkness. And so, that's what we're facing right now, so your help getting vocal on this is probably the only way we're going to get it done."

Important: Who is Opposing the UAPDA? "It's staff! And it's like, who elected you? You were not elected!" ~Burlison "I cannot believe that I am sponsoring the language that Senator Schumer also is sponsoring." ~Burlison ~ Burlison: "We're trying to get UAP Disclosure Acts put on the National Defense Authorization Act. We are facing difficulties, and I mean, it's so frustrating, because it's not members [of Congress]. I don't, at least, if it is members, they're not coming to me and saying, 'Hey, I'm not allowing your amendment.' "It's staff! And it's like, who elected you? You were not elected!' I mean, for you to be able to deny an elected official whose...my job is to answer to the people, and you're gonna deny me the ability to get this amendment, at least even offered, is unacceptable. "And so, right now we're trying to get that made in order, so that when it comes to the floor, at least we get an opportunity to have a vote on the UAP Disclosure Act! And then you'll know who supports it and who doesn't. "But I've gotta get the Intelligence Committee to approve that. And, so any help, André Carson, would be greatly appreciated. If you could lean on our chairman and others, that would be fantastic, but we've gotta get it made in order. And if we get out of the House, I think that we're halfway there. "And then we'll...I think we've got allies in the Senate, whether it'. And I cannot believe that I am sponsoring the language that Senator Schumer also is sponsoring (laughter and applause). But what's right is right, and truth is truth. And we're all Americans, and that's why this is such a common-sense thing. And the only thing that's gonna stop it is these staffers who are killing things behind the scenes in the cover of darkness. And so, that's what we're facing right now, so your help getting vocal on this is probably the only way we're going to get it done."

Joe Murgia

11,580 views • 1 month ago

Here is the play in question by Ryan, and as much as this is obvious that the catcher didn't secure this ... the rule in place for scorers is if a thorw BOUNCES, it is a throwing error. I do not like applying this in this type of instance on a throw from the outfield, but right now that's how the rule reads. Only the committee can change it on appeal, and they would have to do that against the writter rule (to the consternation of those in charge I'm certain). But letter of the law ... the throwing error is correct.

Here is the play in question by Ryan, and as much as this is obvious that the catcher didn't secure this ... the rule in place for scorers is if a thorw BOUNCES, it is a throwing error. I do not like applying this in this type of instance on a throw from the outfield, but right now that's how the rule reads. Only the committee can change it on appeal, and they would have to do that against the writter rule (to the consternation of those in charge I'm certain). But letter of the law ... the throwing error is correct.

MLB Scoring Changes

232,327 views • 1 year ago