Just make enabling jailbroken mode require a factory reset of the device.
The biggest risk is not elderly people but rather the owner giving their passcode to someone else, e.g. a repair shop, who then enables jailbroken mode without the owner's knowledge and installs malware.
You can mitigate this problem, and the elderly person problem, by requiring the phone to be factory reset. That way any jailbreak would be extremely obvious.
To be fair some things that are considered normal in non-Anglo Saxon societies are considered authoritarian in Anglo Saxon societies, in particular having to register your whereabouts with the government, or having to carry ID at all times.
There's no such thing as identity theft. Individual companies can be defrauded when they don't do sufficient checks. The companies that do sufficient checks don't get defrauded. You can't prevent someone else's incompetence.
As for being subject to prosecution for crimes that you didn't commit, you can either live in a jurisdiction where the justice system works more effectively, or else be rich and have a good lawyer.
There are precisely two languages that make the most sense to implement the TypeScript compiler in: Rust and TypeScript itself.
A Rust implementation will have the fastest compilation speeds, memory safety, can easily be compiled to WASM, or compiled to a native node module.
A TypeScript implementation provides the most convenient way for TypeScript code to use the typescript package as a library. Pure JS, no native code or WASM dependencies. No FFI tax, can be jitted.
Go was always a compromise to make a port easier for humans. Go's GC makes it easier to keep the general code structure from the TS implementation. However that GC is also a liability, you sacrifice speed and embeddability.
Personally I'd prefer they went back to TypeScript for the reference implementation, and used Rust for the performance implementation. Go doesn't bring anything to the table anymore.
> There are precisely two languages that make the most sense to implement the TypeScript compiler in: Rust and TypeScript itself.
Incorrect. I can maybe agree that those are the only perfect languages to implement tsc in them (if there is such thing). But in the real world, "perfect" does not actually mean "it's a good idea". Go made the most sense to port to (especially before agents), more than Rust (although C# could also be a good idea IMO).
C#'s embeddability/interop story is as good or better than Golang's. The primary reason they chose not to use it was that C# was seen as too verbose compared to the TS original source. In particular TS used a lot of top level functions and bare/anonymous data types and while C# has picked up top level function support it's still not "idiomatic" and while C# has a long standing anonymous data type support it's not very "ergonomic", certainly not compared to TS structural typing. Golang's traits are a bit more ergonomic by comparison, unfortunately.
I also still think C# would have been a better long term option for maintainability, but I'm not on the Typescript team and didn't get a vote, and I can understand their methodology even if I don't agree with it.
> while C# has picked up top level function support it's still not "idiomatic"
It has no such thing. C# has top-level statements in one file per project, which omit the usual entrypoint Main boilerplate, but that's the extent of it.
There's never been a better time to be a professional mathematician, perhaps. Just like there's never been a better time to be a senior software engineer.
An 18 year old entering university today will retire somewhere in the 2070s. Is mathematics, or software engineering, a promising career path for the next 50 years? No, it's most certainly not, and anyone suggesting otherwise is delusional. I don't know what would be a good career path, but most certainly avoid anything that AI is having the most success at in 2026.
The career path of a mathematician is far different than that of a software engineer.
> I don't know what would be a good career path, but most certainly avoid anything that AI is having the most success at in 2026.
This hinges on an assumption that means our whole society is turned upside down completely with no way to predict anything. But this is an assumption only. So you can either plan for a known path and do something valuable there, OR just put up your hand and prepare for.. what? Like not even physical jobs are safe because who will hire anyone if a good chunk of all humans will be out of jobs? Your best bet would probably be to build a bunker and stock up on canned food.
If you're a software engineer or mathematician then your world has already been turned upside down by this technology.
I used to write code by hand, now I just write prompts and manage the AI. There is some expertise involved but considerably less than before, and no doubt even that will vanish in the coming years.
For mathematicians the picture is even more bleak because their field is being strip mined and they face a future where there are perhaps no human reachable conjectures. Moreover if your job is to teach other mathematicians and nobody wants to become a mathematician... This is the future even if the technology hardly improves at all.
You don't need to know if there will be safe jobs in the future to avoid jobs that are unsafe today.
Personally if I were a teenager today I'd choose a career in medicine. You can still exercise your brain, but because it's practical and the fact that you have people's lives in your hands means that it's considerably less likely to be replaced by AI any time soon.
I'm on the wrong site for this, but isn't it interesting how we don't ask what is the most interesting field I can join, but rather ... how do I stay employed with this for the next 44 years? Seems to me we missed the entire point and just accept it as reality and that it has to be this way. I'm not asking this to be snarky or smart, I'm just genuinely curious why everything seemed easier back in the day.
Not every field has an equal number of vacancies. There are a few people who study Art History and get a job as an art gallery curator, etc. There are many more who end up as baristas.
It's fine to follow your dream, but just make sure that your dream wants you too.
It also helps to have rich parents, if you grow up poor you understand the consequences of choosing the wrong career path can be devastating. Some people have the freedom to experiment and still get a soft landing, other people need to get it right the first time.
If AI came about 40 years ago, it would have been much more restricted and advanced much much slower.
But politics does not care for the average worker anymore. Every democratic country is slowly turning geriatric, so due to how democracy works, the will of the OLD is what runs societies. And job security is not one of those things, when the biggest voting block does not even work.
Yeah, there isn't anything wrong with encouraging people to get into mathematics
But recommending it as a career, might be delusional, maybe harmful? (Although people say that about artists too)
The EU, like most countries, only grants their tld to people, companies or organizations based in the European Union. Why should UK citizens be allowed to use it?
I see a domain name as property. Am I allowed to buy a house close to the border? Yes. If they change the law, I don't think it's fair to take the house away from me.
If the EU had a law saying no foreigner could own a house inside the EU, and you bought a house and then renounced your EU citizenship, it would be entirely appropriate that the EU forces you to sell the house or forfeit it.
I don’t set the .EU rules. But if they established that the TLD can be used only by EU citizens (or whatever the exact criteria are), I see no reason they should not enforce that. This doesn’t appear to be a case where they changed the rules. It’s a case where the rules were clear and it’s certainly not the EU’s fault that the registrant no longer meets the retirements.
From the other side, why should the EU allow someone outside the EU to hold onto a domain that a person within the EU might want or benefit from?
"they should enforce their rules" is a pretty pointless statement in a discussion of whether the rules make sense.
They should let people keep it because it was bought under the correct circumstances and it's very disruptive to rip away a domain name while harmless to let a very tiny fraction escape that way.
I disagree that the rules don’t make sense. The fact that the rules are inconvenient for a small set of individuals who registered a EU domain and live in a country that decided to leave the EU does not mean the EU rules are wrong.
> it's very disruptive
Britain leaving the EU was very disruptive. I don’t see why the EU should alter their rules to accommodate British citizens. It doesn’t seem like responsibility of easing the disruption should fall at all to the EU when Britain created the disruption.
Why should it apply to anyone that leaves? You haven’t justified that assertion.
If the intent is specifically to have a TLD for citizens and entities within the government’s scope, why should anyone outside that scope get to keep a domain? That is directly contradictory to the intent.
Governmental TLD’s are not supposed to be vanity domains that anyone can grab. That’s not the point.
You got that line backwards. I'm saying that a group/company that wants an EU domain only needs one person in the EU. The standards are very low, not something that gains a benefit from strict enforcement.
You don't really own the domain name though, you rent it from the registar for a fixed term during which you can trade it if you so desire. But it is not something you own, it is a rental with conditions and it can always be taken away. Not saying its fair or not but that's what it fundamentally is and doesn't really map to a fully owned asset.
The term dates from the 90s at least. It's not a new term and I don't think we should stop using it just because the orange one has taken a liking to it.
Faithful to the original theme. Apropos. +1 on adding the prompt as long as it’s affordable and easy enough Simon, and not too distracting/noisy/time consuming all considered!
They sucked basically. A bendy bus takes up twice as much space as a double decker while being half as fun to ride on. Even with double deckers many bus stops operate beyond capacity with multiple buses in contention at a stop, double deckers allow 3 buses to load simultaneously allowing six busloads of people to board in a space that would only allow for 1 bendy bus, essentially tripling the capacity.
They also cause problems for other road users such as cyclists.
Bendy buses work well if your city has wide straight roads. London's roads are neither.
no, not really. occasionally the power pickup thingy would get detached from the overhead wires, but the driver had a big pole to hook them up again.
the trolleys were basically replacements for trams, which needed a lot of street furniture in the form of rails, points, etc. which caused problems for the increasing use of cars. but i always liked them (trolleys).
The biggest risk is not elderly people but rather the owner giving their passcode to someone else, e.g. a repair shop, who then enables jailbroken mode without the owner's knowledge and installs malware.
You can mitigate this problem, and the elderly person problem, by requiring the phone to be factory reset. That way any jailbreak would be extremely obvious.
reply