วีดีโอ

7:45 That compiler gets to peek into `impl Trait` at return position to discovered Send + Unpin seems like a mistake, however expedient.

If u try to predict where a tornado will go depending on its speed and direction you can only predict with a similar level of certainty where it will be detected at a future time. In quantum physics they are tiny spherical vortexes not particles. Moving inside a lattice made of Planck sized elastic tubes/strings. That's how EMR moves, through quamtum wires. When trying to get particle physicists to understand the wave equation is describing a wave detected at single points not a particle, it's like talking to high tech voodoo madmen, they say energy is a particle but has a wave function which isn't actually a wave! it's like particle physicists seeing people in a boat and saying "Oh look those people are moving mysteriously across the water" then we say "no but they're in a boat" to which they say "no there's no boat that's just a boat function that gives the illusion of a boat, we build nuclear bombs, computers to give corporations more control over everything and everyone, we control all physics taught in Universities and peer review journals, we have ai controlling drones killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other places with no human 2nd opinion. So trust us we are smarter than you there is no boat, the Universe has no fixed laws at the quantum level, it's not that we can't explain them using the particle model, it's just bizarre and those people move mysteriously across the water in a boat function." The Theory of Everything has been around for 5 years with 2 math proofs to Goldbachs conjecture and proof a 2nd loop is impossible in the Collatz Conjecture but the Big bang particle industry have kept it suppressed time and time again, with hysterical particle physicists unable to bear to look or listen to any evidence that for a split second says they are wrong, who keep taking down this guys channel, and refusing to acknowledge his math proofs it's looking more like more doom every day for humanity, the TOE and experiments to prove it are on channel "Breaking physics (beyond the SMOPP)" most experiments and the 2 math proofs are in 1 minute shorts. There is no collapse there is only a change of focus on the wave, what changes the focus is the real mystery but this channel has experiments to test for what it is.

I found this immensely helpful as someone going through the book and not completely understanding Send & Sync! Thanks for this unique perspective, great talk!

For lifetimes I think Rust would be well served by separating lifetimes from types, like Ocaml did. That is, the lifetime should not be part of the type of a variable like it is now, which forces invasive code changes when a lifetime specification is added.

Beautiful work...

Tetris starts at 22:56

I am looking forward to this in the upstream. I am a creator of dm-writeboost which is a caching solution on device-mapper and my current hobby work is to implement a block device in userland like fuse counterpart. In this work, I've implemented bridge module in C but I want to reimplement it with Rust for Linux. Thank you for your great work.

Rust is blazing as fast as possible the path to being as complex as C++

14:05 is the key, for me

cool video)

Nice job. 😀

Small detail; but the Bluetooth logo is 'H' and 'B'; not 'B' and 'T'. Edit: And the history of 'Ye' is actually because of similarity to the letter thorn 'Þ' which predates the Latin scripts, not a combination of 't' and 'h'.

I'd just like to say thank you for the `Captures` trick. Today was the second time I've come back to this video to use it solve my lifetime issues.

This was helpful. Alice is a treasure to the Rust community; her posts on the Rust User Forum are great learning material.

A phenomenal educator, my Rust and even general CS skills have grown immensely since discovering Jon

Jon is a great teacher. I wonder if I have some kind of eye cancer or if he has it😬. Gray code on purple background is among the hardest to read I have encountered so far.

26:22 that's an interesting way of doing cyclic permutations, I imagine for such small arrays it doesn't really matter, but you could filter for positions in side1 where the first element of side2 occurs and just consider those offsets (might only be one). So maybe like let matching_start_offsets = (0..6).filter(|i| side1[i]==side2[0]); for i in matching_start_offsets { if (0..6).find(|j| side1[i+j%6] != side2[j]).is_none() { return true; } } return false Also wave function collapse is pretty much equivalent to the method of constraint propagation? Entropy is just counting the number of configurations, so its the same as the policy of setting the most constrained tiles first, to reduce the likelihood of backing yourself into a corner early, the flexible slots can be left until more is determined... P.S. There an MIT open course lecture on this and more by Patrick H. WInston, its really good, there's a bunch of other things like Dijkstra's/A* that you can express as a graph search which you can just do with a cue of nodes to visit and picking things from the queue in different ways...

*PromoSM* 😓

Great talk by alice, thank you so much cleared so many doubts about synchronization behaviour.

Amazing talk

This guy is a singleton type.

The DBUS TUI sounds really useful! Can I have a link?

Jon kindly reached out and let us know of some good news! The RFC for the new capture rules for the 2024 edition has now been accepted! rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3498-lifetime-capture-rules-2024.html

Ugh what a perfect intersection of all of my interests lol. Thanks for this.

Are those rules enforced by the compiler?

Thanks for sharing your project, and love of Rust!

Where’s the slides?

I love that Rust keeps having embedded users in mind. I think it’s by far the best area for Rust to shine, even if it’s not a popular one.

@22:30 It's a little odd to me that we don't just that it behaves like a return position impl trait-i.e., that there must be some single type which satisfies this that the compiler knows but you're not explicitly specifying. Like, the argument to eat is not "an impl Trait type", it's just an associated type for the trait-which must be a single, specific type-which happens to be defined opaquely. Thus, the function just knows that it's some kind of Iterator<Item = u32> and so that's all you can do with it in eat.

Every Jon Gjengset lecture is a wonderful new experience! Thanks for uploading! 🥰

Thank you

A slight nitpick for 15:00 (argument impl Trait): This can still be viewed as an example of an existential type because (exists a. a) -> b is the same as forall a. a -> b (using haskell notation). If you represents exists with a dependent pair this can be viewed as dependent currying: (a: Type, a) -> b same as (a : Type) -> a -> b. So imo return and argument position impl Trait are consistent.

I don't understand the need for a single defining use with #[defines]. Wouldn't all uses need to be compatible, so any one could be taken as the defining use?

some weird audio artifacts unfortunately

What’s the link to the faster than lime Video mentioned at 38:00?

Thank you!

Great.🎉🎉🎉