> That being said, I am in favor of in-person voting requiring proof of citizenship

The appropriate time to verify citizenship is the one that already happens: during registration. Poll workers only need to verify who you are and that you're registered.

In my experience there was no verification other than verbally verbally confirming address and name.

At https://covr.sos.ca.gov/ I have to positively state that I am a US citizen an tie my name to a driver's license or SSN. Neither driver's license nor SSN confirm that one is a citizen (I had both before naturalizing), but both of them are tied to citizenship information in some database. I know I had to attend the Social Security offices in person to provide proof of my naturalization in order to receive an SSN card without the words "valid for work only with DHS authorisation".

If you define success for Rust as "everything is written in Rust", then Rust will never be successful. The project also doesn't pursue success in those terms, so it is like complaining about how bad a salmon is at climbing trees.

That is however how the Rust Evangelism Strike Force does it all the time, hence these kind of remarks I tend to do.

C++ is good for some things regardless of its warts due to ecosystem, and Rust is better in some other ones, like being much safer by default.

Both will have to coexist in decades to come, but we have this culture that doesn't accept matches that end in a draw, it is all about being in the right tribe.

I assert there is no reason to rewrite LLVM in Rust.

And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.

Or ignoring that for the time being NVidia, Intel, AMD, XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo, CERN, Argonne National Laboratory and similar, hardly bother with Rust based software for what they do day to day.

They have employees on WG14, WG21, contribute to GCC/clang upstream, and so far have shown no interest in having Rust around on their SDKs or research papers.

> I assert there is no reason to rewrite LLVM in Rust.

Everybody agrees with that, though? Including the people writing rustc.

There's a space for a different thing that does codegen differently (e.g. Cranelift), but that's neither here nor there.

> And I also assert that the speech that Rust is going to take over the C++, misses on that as long as Rust depends on LLVM for its existence.

There's a huge difference between "Rust depends on LLVM because you couldn't write LLVM in Rust [so we still need C++]" and then "Rust depends on LLVM because LLVM is pretty good". The former is false, the latter is true. Rust is perfectly suited for writing LLVM's eventual replacement, but that's a massive undertaking with very little real value right now.

Rust is young and arguably incomplete for certain use cases, and it'll take a while to mature enough too meet all use cases of C++, but that will happen long before very large institutions are also able to migrate their very large C++ code bases and expertise. This is a multi-decade process.

If anything, making cranelift an LLVM replacement would likely go counter to its stated goals of being a simple and fast code generator.

> these valuable projects that are taking hard-line stances against it are going to find themselves either having to retreat from that position or facing insurmountable difficulties in staying relevant while holding to their stance.

It is the conservative position: it will be easier to walk back the policy and start accepting AI produced code some time down the road when its benefits are clearer than it will be to excise AI produced code from years prior if there's a technical or social reason to do that.

Even if the promise of AI is fulfilled and projects that don't use it are comparatively smaller, that doesn't mean there's no value in that, in the same way that people still make furniture in wood with traditional methods today even if a company can make the same widget cheaper in an almost fully automated way.

That's on the way. Already available in nightly for select types.

> got stuck on this task with misleading error messages for the longest time.

Could you elaborate on that? We consider misleading error messages to be bugs and would like to know more on case we could fix them.

It appears the error message has been improved.

One of my recurring language design hot takes is that it's easier to design for speed and then make it easy to use than it is to make it easy to use and then try to speed it up.

C++ is trying to make C easier to use for 40 years, and it's still not there. So I wouldn't call that easier.

It has been there for me since 1993, in every single scenario as alternative to C, when the choice boils down to either of them.

Since 1993, I only have used C when required to do for various reasons out of my control, or catching up with WG14 standards.

how would you write something like

    #include <print>
    #include <map>
    #include <string>

    int main(int argc, char** argv) 
    {
      using namespace std::literals;

      std::string foo = "foo:";
      foo += argv[0];

      std::map<std::string, int> m{
        {foo, 123}
      , {"count: "s + std::to_string(argc), 456}
      };

      std::println("{}", m);
    }

in C

Even better example,

    import std;

    int main(int argc, char** argv)
    {
        using namespace std::literals;

        auto foo = "foo:"s;
        foo += argv[0];

        std::map<std::string, int> m{
          {foo, 123}
        , {"count: "s + std::to_string(argc), 456}
        };

        std::println("{}", m);
    }

Sure, there are nice parts of C++. And there are also brain-dead parts that add needless complexity such as:

* rvalue references

* the difference between auto, decltype, typeof

* unreadable template monstrosities

* various different flavors of "smart" pointer

* the continued existence of footguns relating to UB, dangling pointers, unexpected temporary lifetimes, etc

* total absence of a build system or package management

* legacy APIs that still take raw pointers

* concepts, a half-assed attempt at generic constraints

No worries, you get some of those in C23, and C2y.

Where is C's build system and package management?

Yeah, because using _Generic alongside typeof and preprocessor macros isn't half-assed attempt at generics.

You misunderstood. Perpetuating C's weaknesses, and then adding additional complexity, is not a defense.

It kind of is, when the goal was to be TypeScript for C, before this was even a concept.

Now ideally we would all be using Modula-2, Ada, Delphi, VB, C#,.... and co, but given that even C compilers are nowadays written in C++, we make do with what we have, while avoiding C flaws as much as possible.

C++ if any made C user friendly.

Examples?

I see loads of those around my neighborhood, usually ferrying kids.

At the same time, I don't need to go 5 miles for groceries, so you might be picturing using a cargo bike in sparse suburbs. If your built environment is car centric then almost definitionally using any other mode of locomotion is going to be subpar.

I believe this to be growing pains. Legislation hasn't yet fully adapted, some of the legislation I've seen makes the mistake of conflaing these, and enforcement is nonexistent in most places. I suspect that as time passes, we'll find ways of allowing ebikes to flourish. Around me the biggest thing I've seen is parents on cargo bikes taking their kids, and that's a demographic that elected officials tend to listen to.

We have the laws. What they’re doing is illegal. I think they need a higher tier of penalties for the repeat offenders, but that would require anyone getting caught first.

It’s an enforcement problem.

The riders know they’re riding where police cars can’t get them. They also know that the bike cops aren’t allowed to ride ultra powerful electric motorcycles. They also know they can just drive off across some grass into a park if anyone tries to stop them.

It’s a hard problem.

> I suspect that as time passes, we'll find ways of allowing ebikes to flourish.

Electric bikes are flourishing here. Electric motorcycles on bike paths are the problem.

I think the electric term is confusing the issue. If it helps, imagine that these were just really quiet but powerful gas powered dirt bikes riding on the pedestrian path. That should give you an idea of what’s going on.

> We have the laws. What they’re doing is illegal. … It’s an enforcement problem.

Because some people think laws only ever exist to restrain as a show of power over others and something is only illegal if you get caught.

And some people just want to be contrarian and acting against the law is the ultimate punching-up.

Some laws are just a good idea, and provide benefit, or even just expectation/predictability, to everyone.

Japan puts these uturn fences up. The sign near the uturn part says "get off your bike and walk it"

https://pasteboard.co/IlXSlFUOgULW.png

I'm not sure how I feel about them. I like that the made a way to get you off your bike. I dislike that the path seems plenty wide enough to accomodate bikes and that it would be a useful bike path or 1/2 bike path, but they want it to 100% pedestrian path, even though it's not remotely crowded.

Why are they illegal in the first place? Obviously people see value in such devices. They don't ride them for the sake of riding them without getting caught.

They have great utility, with their power, weight and size. They can be fast for sure, but it's also not on the same level as even a 300cc motorbike either - should they really be put into the same basket? How can that be enveloped by law - if it really has to be - without taking their utility away?

If the law is too restrictive, current users won't bother following, since the enforcement is so rare.

The discussion really depends on which country we're talking about, but basically speed bikes are not illegal. They're just considered as moped, meaning a 50cc motorbike and have to respect all the rules mopeds are subject to, such as:

- Having a license plate and back mirror

- Be insured

- Wear a helmet (not a bike helmet, a moped/motorcycle helmet)

- Drive on the road, not on bike lanes

Nobody is arguing they're equivalent to a 300cc motorbike.

I know what you're talking about, but a lot of people are conflating them. In some cases it is legislators like a recent attempt to require ebikes have to register and have a drivers' license for them. In others it's parents not realizing that they got their kids an electric dirt bike instead of an ebike. Of course, you do have the antisocial element of people not caring and actually seeking out these, but we need to separate the different problems to address them, as you are doing.

> In some cases it is legislators like a recent attempt to require ebikes have to register and have a drivers' license for them.

Has any legislation been passed or was this only a proposal?

Crazy legislation gets proposed all the time with no possibility of passing. Some times no intent of passing, either.

I made a comment below about the law that just passed in New Jersey. The short of it is "Anything with two wheels and a motor is now legally a motorcycle, and must follow all the laws and regulations of motorcycles.

Motorcycle cops can ride faster than any e-bike, and go anywhere a bicycle can.

A car too, but you might kill the suspect [1]. Chasing kids on e-bikes down with motorcycles is asking for deathly accidents to happen.

[1] https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2025/06/03/12-year-old-boy-dies...

Driving what's better described as an electric dirt bike with street tires through pedestrian paths is also asking for dead pedestrians?

That is not to be blamed on the cops. Let's try to be truthful.

This reaction is interesting to me. In many jurisdictions around the world, police are required to call off a chase if it is deemed unsafe for any reason.

In what world do you think it is OK for a 12-year-old boy riding an e-scooter to die after being chased by police? Before you respond: Ask yourself how you would react if it was your son (or close relative). Any parent would devasted.

I don't participate in clan mentality, where every tragedy has to be blamed on an outsider. An accident is tragic, it doesn't make it any less tragic that it was the kid's own fault. Or if you can't stand not having somebody else to blame, it's clearly the parent's fault.

Both sides are to be blamed, only one side are professional adults who are trained protect our community. A pursue is always dangerous, not only for the suspect but also for the cops and bystanders so it should not be done if not absolutely necessary.

Setting aside the question who is to be blamed, using motorcycles to pursue kids on bikes will cause the deaths of more kids. Is that a price worth paying? No.

As someone who has spent a lot of time riding both bicycles and motorized things, this is not true at all.

I could hop my bicycle over curbs that would bring a police motorcycle to a halt, or even toss a bike over a fence and then pick it up on the other side if I wanted. Or I could dip into the trees near the bike path where a police motorcycle has no chance of maneuvering.

Buy that time there cop is also on foot to chase you down.

This is not even remotely true.

in my area, one of the biggest groups using those vehicles were food delivery riders. for those guys, those electric mopeds were a gamechanger, as they were able to make many more runs that might have made the difference between "just enough" and "just not enough". now those are becoming illegal (on bike paths & without registration), but they're not making sense one the roads due to congestion. it's a lose-lose situation for the delivery riders and the people that order online, but a win for bicycle safety.

as far as i can tell most full time riders didn't switch to "pedal assisted e-bikes" but probably went looking for other work. we're back to students riding their private bicycles to make some money on the side.

again, you're confusing/conflating the definition of ebike. The problem is not a senior or disabled person using a pedal assist bike; it's electronic motorcycles being ridden like they're bicycles, by underage, inexperienced kids without protection. This is going to turn out much worse for everybody; look what New Jersey has done for ALL ebikes because of the lack of understanding that there is a big difference between a pedal-assist mountain bike and an electronic motorcycle.

>> Starting January 20, 2026, all e-bike riders in New Jersey need three things: a license, registration, and insurance. You have until July 19, 2026 to get these sorted out.

You might have replied to the wrong subthread.

The difference between the SF 38 and the 38R which stops 1/3rd as much is 1/4th of the travel time in <5 miles.