I mean when comparing to machines though the only thing the machines are better at is maybe not getting distracted while humans tend to be better at adapting which is usually important for safety to put it mildly
After all the first Tesla auto drive fatality was literally "that is probably a sign not a trunk"...
Object pooling is just malloc that is a little cheaper and maybe a different failure case when you are full...
If you have a good method to handle the equivalent of OOM then they can make a difference in how the program runs but normally they are just a performance optimization.
Honestly with 64 bit addresses it would be nice if address reuse were eliminated but that requires memory movement of a different kind (probably just as dangerous) or some terrible paging work for the OS...
Replace C++ code with Rust is happening at a glacial pace, basically involving full rewrites of the module replaced and significant work to refactor the surrounding code to support it.
(This is why Rust is focusing heavily on interop right now, if it is easier to integrate more projects can use it)
The problem is updating a decently sized program from one version of a compiler to another can take man months to do and that doesn't typically include intentional breaking changes.
A C++ change that requires updating 1% can be several hundreds of thousands of updates which is on the scale of beyond a man year depending on if you can regex cheat.
The fear the author is glossing over (I wouldn't say ignore they acknowledge there are reasons) is when faced with a man year to update people just don't.
Especially when the most interesting breaking changes don't tend to be synthetic (you can just make modules look like code you couldn't write before after all) but instead be subtle changes in behavior.
That means that you won't necessarily even know all the breakages which is a horrifying concept.
Why would you want to invest in a consumable asset class?
Even if Nvidia hit a wall and can't outclass its old chips they still have a significant experation date on them since using them in data center situations destroys them over relatively short time frames for finance (a few years).
Note that for an asset class the fact that they can last longer isn't important, if they are fungible it means investors need to predictably know the lifespan which requires pessimistic usage assumptions.
In fact it mentions insurance fraud as the cause...
Additionally it certainly wasn't increasing cost but reduced income which is a very different issue
reply