• 0 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: April 17th, 2024

help-circle



  • sabin@lemmy.worldtoAtheism@lemmy.worldJohn Green's Religion
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    I don’t want to be an ass and tell this guy what he believes for him, but if someone claims only that god ‘exists’, without elaborating on any particular details about what sort of entity they are, it leads me to believe that they want to avoid the label atheist/agnostic for optics, but otherwise have an agnostic viewpoint (especially if they are willing to go so far as to say it doesn’t matter if the god is ‘real’).

    The claim about God being similar to morality or other things that become “real” through shared perception to me does not have any philosophical rigour. God is a different category of thing from morality or whatever other cultural phenomenon you want to compare it to.

    You can ‘believe’ in morality or cultural phenomenon without having to think anything is real. The only thing that makes cultural phenomena real IS the fact that it is perceived to exist in our heads.

    God is totally different. If you don’t believe your God created the universe and/or life, the God you believe in is not a God by any sensible definition of the word.

    If you find it equally possible that life in the universe could have just as easily arisen though purely mechanistic means as described by the laws of physics, then you do not believe in a God (unless you want to argue that they designed the laws of physics to eventually create life naturally).

    Whether it’s life itself being designed, or the laws of physics being designed to facilitate life, I think its fair to say you must believe the universe was intentionally crafted in some way to facilitate life in order for a god to exist.

    This event, of the universe and/or life being conceived and instantiated refers to an actual event in astronomical history. It refers to a category of thing that’s more real than the cultural phenomenon this guy compares it to.















  • sabin@lemmy.worldtoRust@programming.devAnnouncing Rust 1.84.1
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    There does exist a crate that allows you to turn it off. Unfortunately the compiler will still compiler your code assuming the same exclusive access rules imposed by the borrow checker, so any time you break the borrow checker rules you’re basically guaranteed to segfault.

    The rust compiler always assumes mutable pointers are exclusive. This is the crux of your issue with the borrow checker. If you don’t make this assumption, then you can’t automatically drop variables when they fall out of scope, thus the programmer would have to manually allocate memory.

    You may prefer even then to allocate memory yourself, but if I was you I would just trust the rust compiler in its assumption that it can optimize programs much better when all pointers are exclusive, and learn to program in a compliant manner