Alcohol is flammable around 40%. French cooks aren’t using overproof brandy to do flambé.
Gunpowder doused in alcohol is, very famously for people interested in the history of rum, flammable if the alcohol is around 57.1% or higher, but straight alcohol/water without gunpowder is flammable at a lower strength than that.
Well, they still exist and you can still pay for things with them (though a lot of businesses won’t give you them in change, and just round up to the nearest $0.05).
I guess it’ll be a few years before they’re out of circulation entirely.
OpenOffice has been effectively dead for many years (though, maddeningly, Apache continues to publish it and squat the trademark); LibreOffice is the mainline where development continues.
Fn can only be called concurrently if its environment is Sync, which is often true but not necessarily.
It’s more precise to say that Fn can be called even when you only have shared access to it, which is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being able to be called concurrently.
`Fn`, `FnMut`, and `FnOnce` can also implement and not implement `Sync` (also `Send`, `Clone`, `Copy`, lifetime bounds, and I think `use<...>` applies to `impl Fn...` return types).
The least restrictive for the caller is Fn (you can call it whenever), then FnMut (you can call it only if you have exclusive access to it, as many times as you want), then FnOnce (you can call it only if you have exclusive owned access, and calling it once destroys it).
The least restrictive for the function itself is the opposite order: FnOnce (it can do anything to its environment, including possibly consuming things without putting them back into a consistent state), followed by FnMut (it has exclusive access to its environment, and so is allowed to mutate it, but not destroy it), followed by Fn (it has only shared access to its environment and therefore is not allowed to mutate it).
Since these orders are inverses of each other, functions that are easier to write are harder to call and vice versa. That’s why they implement the trait with the minimum amount of power possible, so that they can be called in more places.
Right-wing populist parties are very popular in Europe, including in France and Germany, the two most important EU countries. There is a significant possibility that people with Trump-like ideologies will come to power there before too long.
Trump is so incompetent he has killed any chance for far right politicians to be elected for the next decades. And even them hate him now due to Greenland.
I really don't think the first part of that is true. All significant recent polls in Germany have AfD at around 25% of vote intentions, which would probably give them the biggest fraction in the Bundestag, or second behind the CDU/CSU (but very close).
I disagree completely. It is very obviously LLM-written, and I would much rather read grammatically poor English than LLM-written text, which has a dystopian vibe and just makes me depressed.
Demanding a password introduces more error and more room for evasion than a finger, which as I said is about the same as getting the phone in the first place. You are right that in some, maybe even most cases, it may not make a difference. But when time is of the essence, additional obstacles are often simply avoided.
You also might ask who is sticking you up. For example, I believe there is fourth amendment literature re government officials that have gotten away with using an arrested persons biometrics to unlock a phone, in a manner in which compelling the release of a password would be illegal. Put another way, I can simply grab your finger or put your phone in front of your face, whereas beating you until you surrender your password is a lot harder to accomplish without creating additional consequences.
Still depends on your threat model. Not everyone lives in a place where stick-ups and random arrests are so common place that you want to inconvenience yourself 99.999% of the happy flow.
Indeed, good point. Proper threat modeling is everything.
This also explains my original reply to the ancestor comment. As I see it, most people's personal threat model essentially already accounts for data breaches to the point that they are almost irrelevant. We hear about them all the time. More and more people are learning about credit freezes or 2fa or just getting these services baked into things they already use (more banks offer free credit monitoring, 2fa is increasingly a standard). It seems like we are in a place where data breaches just become essentially background noise to the average user.
In my view then, I would personally factor in physical theft as a higher threat than "phishing and data breaches". Even if low probability to begin with.
There is also the objective question of which occurs more or incurs more damages to individuals, the answer to which I do not know. I know companies often spend a lot of money to fix problems or deal with lawsuits, but individuals don't really get compensated by that the way they would if someone who ripped your phone away from you was tackled to the ground and your property got returned. For example.
As you say though, the threat model is everything.
Gunpowder doused in alcohol is, very famously for people interested in the history of rum, flammable if the alcohol is around 57.1% or higher, but straight alcohol/water without gunpowder is flammable at a lower strength than that.
reply