None of this has much to do with type safety at all. A dynamically typed language might have a Salt object that has a constructor that takes a base64 string. If its common uuid library doesn't output base64, then you can't use it directly.

Nor does a specific uuid library matter much. It just needs to be able to output base64 strings, which is an uncommon uuid encoding, but it's out there.

Nor does type safety prevent providing a sensible default implementation.

The crate uses phc strings, which store the salt together with the hashed password, so no, it can handle it all on its own.

There was just no thought into how components work together.

But they have practiced the goosestep a lot.

The fillabuster was being used against them at the time. Ultimately, nobody should be able to stop an action just because they don't have 60% of the Senate in favor. That, however, also needs to come with other democratic reforms, like expanding the Senate.

Congratulations! After processing your payment of $1392.63, we have put out the fire on your house.

Since everything else around you is still burning, we will require another $1392.63 to come out again.

I'd like it better if things were designed to work together better.

Right now, I'm working on a password storage system using the password_hash crate. You need to provide the salt yourself; this is already a bit silly for not providing a simple default that just gives you 16 bytes from a CSPRNG, but let's continue.

You read the Salt struct documentation, and it talks about UUIDs being pretty good salts (well, using v4, anyway). So that pushes you toward the uuid crate, right? Except no. That crate doesn't produce formats that the functions on the Salt struct will accept, like base64. So maybe the uuid_b64 crate will do it? I don't think so, because that crate uses a URL-safe version of base64, and it's not clear Salt will take that, either.

You're now forced to use a cumbersome interface from the rand crate to make your salt. I'm still working through some of the "size not known at compile time" errors from this approach.

All of which would work better if there was a little thought into connecting the pieces together, or just providing a default salt generator that's going to do the right thing 90% of the time.

Don't get me started on how Actix hasn't thought through how automated testing is supposed to work.

People tend to overstate FPGAs. They are designed as software in a funny programming language and then "burned in" to hardware. They can and do have inaccuracies and bugs.

In the long run, real hardware is going to disappear through the attrition of time, so we do need this stuff for the sake of preservation. But people tend to put it on a pedestal without really understanding it.

Right, and on different platforms, too. Yes, your gaming PC can do it fine, but a PS Vita should have the horsepower to do it, too, and that's not where things are at.

And then there's homebrew stuff. Works fine on real hardware, but emulators often fail.

Fillibuster doesn't apply to cabinet nominations. Democrats themselves got rid of that. It should be converted down to majority vote rather than 60%, but that's how things stand now.

Hitachi, man. Do you need an air conditioner? A hydrolic excavator? A pussy diddler? A 120mm self propelled mortar? If all of the above, they're the company for you.

Computer Shopper was the shit back in the day. Imagine Newegg's listings of computer hardware bound up every month into a catalog.

It's common for autistic people to be called "retarted", and that's probably what this is.

Fuck Musk, but this is a thing that happened and still does. If anything, Musk using the term shows a lack of introspection and sympathy.

It sorta is.

A key way that human intelligence works is to break a problem down into smaller components that can be solved individually. This is in part due to the limited computational ability of the human brain; there's not enough there to tackle the complete problem.

However, there's no particular reason AI would need to be limited that way, and it often isn't. Expert Go players see this in AI for that game. The AI tends to make all sorts of moves early on that don't seem to be following the usual logic, and it's because it's laid out the complete game in its "head" and going directly for the goal. Go is basically impossible for humans to win against the best AIs at this point.

This is a different kind of intelligence than we're used to, but there's no reason to discount it as invalid.

See the paper Understanding Human Intelligence through Human Limitations