It's not a magic bullet — sometimes it's not practical — but Rust was built with interoperability with C/C++ in mind. Many Rust projects are built with C/C++ dependencies. Mozilla's use of Rust in Firefox is a good example of gradual adoption and interoperability.
This is based on the assumption that Rust will make you move more slowly — anecdotally, it does at times — and that this is a constant slow down.
I disagree with that premise. Rust is imperfect, and can seem obtuse when you begin using it. But the payoff is moving faster. It compiles, it works; modulo logic bugs. Less painful refactoring, less time spent chasing memory leaks, none of the bullshit memory bugs, no data races.
This isn't trivial stuff, and pays off day to day.
I also have to object to any argument that says something will be 'automagically' fixed in the future. It's a weak position based on something that _might_ happen.
With the majority of the population living in cities on the coast. Sydney? Melbourne? Big, dense cities. We're not all out living in the bush shouting cooee at each other.
Andy Ngo is a well known far-right agitator, with a reputation for distorting events. What he recounts likely has a kernel of truth, but his reporting is suspect.
Oh lordy. The GCP docs. I straight up ignore them most of the time and just search for relevant guides elsewhere. So much of what Google puts up is marketing fluff, high-level descriptions, or at best a description of the happy-path to doing something.
The most galling thing is GCP support. I'm on a team which pays for google support and it is by far the most lax, useless nonsense I've ever encountered. They are literally no help.
This title is overstating the issue. End of the day, this is a tiny bit of interpersonal conflict/difficulties.
Personally I'm always sensitive to systemic, toxic behaviour in programming communities and I'll jump on it if I can. But this ain't it. This is plain self-aggrandisement.
Don't be obtuse. It's pretty clear what type of men she's talking about from the get go. If the article is guilty of anything it's generalising somewhat, but that's a minor concern.
Otherwise, it's on point. Notions of female purity are a load of horseshit.
You are confusing two things: (1) whether notions of purity, body image etc are "horseshit" and (2) whether she is guilty of double standards or not. She clearly is guilty of double standards because she denies men to express their own opinions about what they value in a woman, while at the same time she feels entitled to bloviate about what she values in men (e.g. not being interested in virginity).
In this context it is irrelevant whether "[I] know the men she is talking about" or not.
