I take it you're not a fan of the borrow rules?
Would you rather manage your memory yourself, or would you rather use a language with a runtime?
Those are your only 2 remaining options for managing memory if you exclude rust-like reference constraints.
Wasm bindgen is an absolute nightmare of auto-generated function names. From a purely performance/functionality perspective it works but it's hella ugly. I hope some alternative arrives at some point.
Not to mention, if you accelerate your spacecraft to a speed faster than the minimum speed needed to raise your orbit as far as mars, you're going to have to slow down by the difference between your speed and that min speed when you go for a landing anyways.
The pace of the orbits alone decides how quickly your spacecraft will get there.
So does old reddit but its also the only version of the site I find usable. UX people can have absurdly lopsided priorities.
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
Set don't forget set -E as well to exit on failed subshells.
Why did you not censor the guys name??? All you're doing is hurting them more by making this post.
Sorry if this response is mal-informed and misses some important part of your workflow, but if all you're trying to do is run a postman collection then all you really need is newman.
A quantum computer can perform many operations in parallel. That is a feature of QM.
You're trivializing the capabilities. This is not something you can just simulate on classic hardware while maintaining the O(n) performance of an actual quantum computer.
The fact that it is probably possible to do this stuff in the first place with a quantum computer is the point.
It's not a theory because it has made no testable predictions. It's just as valid as claiming, "Angels did it."
I don't disagree with this statement as stated but try and have some appreciation for the fact that this sort of reality-bending invention is possible.
It's ok to start speculating.
If you have an analog computer that simulates a ball falling, you have an analog of a ball.
In this case your analog computer would literally have some kind of ball as part of the apparatus. Thus you would be able to argue that the result is proof of a ball having been dropped and having taken exactly x.seconds to fall.
If you have an analog integrator you literally produce cyclic motions of the constitute frequencies of some signal in order to form the output graph.
What you are doing is trying to use the above statements to argue some statement about quantum computing. Clearly any attempt to do so is complete nonsense.
If anything reconsidering the argument above just lends MORE credence to the idea of a multiverse. Wherever you have an analog computer producing a result the intermediary compontents of the result physically exist. If the same applies for a quantum computer the space in which different permutations of intermediate results must physically exist.
I'm not trying to insult you but you're clearly forcing some nonsense argument just to match the conclusion you've already had in mind before understanding the argument put forward.
Edit: I realized now I confused the "ball and disk" integrator for a similar physical apparatus that was used to compute fourier transforms but the point still stands
Dropping a ball is not an effective means of computing a square.
A quantum computer is such an effective means of performing its computations, that it brings into question how it can even be possible that the electronic signals forming the intermediate results can all simultaneously exist and be consumed in the first place.
You doubling down again on comparing these two just proves you don't understand anything about the claims being made.
Choose an operating system (common choices for newcomers are typically linux mint or ubuntu, but your choice of OS really doesn't matter imo). Burn the OS image onto a flashdrive, and boot into the flashdrive. Then follow the install instructions onscreen.