The big downside is that, for backwards compatibility, the default must still be unsafe code. Ideally this could be toggled with a compiler flag, rather than having to wrap most code in “safe” blocks (like rust, but backwards).

One potential upside that people don’t seem to be discussing is that the safe subset could also be the place to finally start cutting down the bloat of C++. We could encourage most developers to write exclusively in the safe subset, and aim to make that the “much smaller and cleaner language” trying to get out of C++.

This is for trains… My guess is that it’s for 20-30 year olds that commute by rail

I thought the route still hadn’t been finalised for the northern leg of HS2. Also high speed means you’re less flexible, as you need to go in a straighter line than normal rail.

I agree that it seems unlikely that the extra effort to complete the northern leg of HS2 would be greater than that of starting from scratch, but I’ve been surprised before.

Thanks, for computing some useful statistics! As much as I believe the implied hypothesis that working at Amazon is bad for one’s health, I think the guardian intentionally tried to present the largest number possible with no context.

Frankly, “Amazon warehouse employees 10x more likely to need an ambulance” is a more impactful headline anyway.