• 0 Posts
  • 73 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2024

help-circle
  • After writing this comment I noticed it became a bit ranty, sorry for that. Something about this article rubbed a bit in the wrong way.

    The relevant section seems to be this:

    Browser engines and garbage-collected runtimes are classic examples of code that fights the borrow checker. You’re constantly juggling different memory regions: per-page arenas, shared caches, temporary buffers, objects with complex interdependencies. These patterns don’t map cleanly to Rust’s ownership model. You end up either paying performance costs (using indices instead of pointers, unnecessary clones) or diving into unsafe code where raw pointer ergonomics are poor and Miri becomes your constant companion.

    The first half is obviously correct, this kind of data model doesn’t work well for the ownership model rust uses for its borrowchecker. I don’t like the conclusion though. Rust makes you pay the performance costs necessary to make your code safe. You would need to pay similar costs in other languages if you intend on writing safe code.

    Sure, if you are fine with potential memory corruption bugs, you don’t need these costs, but that’s not how I would want to code.

    The other thing bugging me is how miri being your companion is framed as something bad. Why? Miri is one the best things about rusts unsafe code tooling. It’s like valgrind, or sanitisers but better.

    Now, the raw pointer ergonomics could be better, I’ll give them that. But if you dive deep into what rust does with raw pointers, or rather what they are planning to do, is really really cool. Provenance and supporting cheri natively is just not possible for languages that chose the ergonomic of a raw integer over what rust does.





  • Therefore Nintendo does that only if they are 100% certain, not just to intimidate like Rockstar does.

    Why would Nintendo be so different from Rockstar? Why would Nintendo not use lawsuits just to intimindate? Rockstar too is a company with many the same interests as Nintendo, and I’m sure their lawyers are not cheap either.

    Yet, Nintendo did not go to court and wanted to do this with a settlement.

    That just proves the point that the threat of a lawsuit is enough to coerce people into submission though. As another example RyujinX e.g. just caved without any struggle.

    And the brought up case of Yuzu does not apply here, because that was not just intimidation, that was because the Yuzu developers themselves shared Tears of the Kingdom millionth of times in Discord.

    This has nothing to do with the legality of their emulator project. Nintendo used their power to extort more concessions from the devs. It also shows how Nintendo isn’t afraid to use the uneven power balance to their advantage.



  • Sued for what? There is nothing Nintendo can sue for. Also we talked about Cease and Desist before, not sueing.

    A c&d is a precursor of being sued. If you do not cease and desist, what is the result of that?

    Also can you explain me, if you are right, why Nintendo didn’t do that with prior decompilation projects of Mario and Zelda games that reached 100% and are played on a variety of systems now?

    I can explain to you, that Nintendo is famous for suing people implementing emulators of their platforms and is also going after things like palworld. It is new information to me, that these decompilation projects exist. I guess they are niche enough to not be interesting to nintendo right now. This does not remove all the other cases where nintendo went after people with lawsuits.




  • The AfD is, for all their faults, relatively libertarian when it comes to privacy rights. That might be because they have a lot to hide, but that’s besides the point. It is definitely not because that’s “too right wing” for them.

    We have had a push for “Vorratsdatenspeicherung” basically every legislature period which is kind of in the same category of “wtf stop doing that”. Ironically it was the FDP that saved us when the SPD in the last coalition tried to implement that. Not sure the CDU is going to stop Dobrint when he has his go at it.

    I don’t see it as a grand departure from current party lines, except for the AfD while the Greens are very ambivalent between their fundi and realo party wings.


  • It will be harder for the advocates now to explain to the rest of the member states why it should be put back on the agenda.

    All it takes is some form of crime that remotely looks like it could have been prevented by client side scanning. Be it child porn, be it terrorism, be it some big drug case. Now that scanning isn’t an exception anymore but generally allowed, the step to “just” forcing everyone to do what the big companies are doing anyways, won’t be as big.

    In short: Assuming that they won’t have reasons and pressure to put this topic back on the table seems unlikely to me, considering the amount of resources they have continually put into this already. Especially since Germany seems to shift more and more towards more autoritarian tendencies itself, a few repetitions might be enough to finally topple their resistance