1. You are mixing up the development process and the language.
2. C++ would be an horrible baseline for newcomers.
In my opinion Rust has at the moment an good chance to be an successor to c++. Traits and derive macros already reduce the boilerplate an dev has to do.
For example Debugging:
- i want to export the default debugging information: #[derive(Debug)]
- i have so items that should not be debugged: custom derive implementation for the type or the secret information
I feel rust is same complex as cpp..just a better build/packages system, and with so many unsafe c/cpp wrappers as lib...I learned it and try to use it on a small project,finding its difficult to use, as cpp, actually more easy to use. https://gtk-rs.org/gtk4-rs/git/book/g_object_memory_manageme... this is the thing make me think.
Some routers can block internet access for new/specific devices. You could try to find the correct device by blocking them all and unblock them after finding and checking them. One possibility is that the stalker uses an old android. That would harder to detect, since its possible that the device is not connected via wifi.
I would rule out the possibility that the listening device is a smartphone, as the battery would last only a few days even with the most conservative energy saving settings.
If climate change prevention is the target, then its also an no for nuclear.
Nuclear reactors need tons of cement, the fuel needs an complicated and energy intensive process with a lot of waste.
That link is also using an average including older reactors that require more highly enriched uranium (enrichment is energy-intensive), newer designs that can run on natural or low enrichment uranium can do 1.31g/kWh:
By that logic solar power should also be banned, due to the amount of coal required per panel (0) both for reduction and Czochralski process. And remember, solar panel factories don't run on solar power.
How does that change the fact that solar panels cannot be manufactured without high quality coal? (0) And doesn't that undermine the "cement for nuclear power" argument?
reply