I personally don't trust the little (probably superficial) insights I have into the topic enough to be able to gauge this; neither do I have the energy to put into discerning slop creators doing it for clickbait with some backyard engineering or genuinely correct amateurs.
I like to outsource that to proper channels, I understand that it's probably not 100% fair every single time, but as I said, I have neither time nor energy to judge it properly myself
Exactly, when it comes to highly complex chemical and electrical engineering and physics (as is the case with Smartphones and their lithium-ion batteries), I will take it as an inditcator if it comes from well-established testers with professional equipment like GN (Gamers Nexus) or other established technical journals when talking outside of the video world, but will not accept it as a general and genuine technical (!) insight until it has gone through the due process of scientific publishing and peer review...
Even then I prefer meta-studies, since they reduce biases and general inaccuracies.
MIT is an extremely weak license when it comes to defending free/libre rights; e.g. it allows proprietary forks. i.e. companies stealing the code, making their own bullshit corpo product and not even releasing the source code back
This is my take as well. I'm extremely disappointed they only went with a temporarily open license instead of a proper one, but using MIT is unfortunately to be expected from the Rust ecosystem for whatever reason...
Granted, I was mostly shit posting. But in all seriousness: wouldn't Rust prevent that kind of exploit by inherent design?
Due to Rust’s ownership semantics, when we free a value, we relinquish ownership on it, which means subsequent attempts to use the value are no longer valid.
Not knowing you can buy used/refurbished betrays a deep level of real life illiteracy