jameseb

That code point is U+0D9E SINHALA LETTER KANTAJA NAASIKYAYA. It's a letter in a writing system used in Sri Lanka.

1. Why does it say where T: Sized for references &T? A reference can definitely point to an unsized type, e.g. &str.

I think the point being made is that the layout shown only applies for Sized T. Layouts for &[T] and &dyn Trait are shown elsewhere on the sheet. &str is noted under &[T].

Edit: although, similar considerations would apply to other pointer types, but that isn't noted on the sheet except for Box<[T]>

A cup can refer to a variety of different measurements (see Cup (unit) - Wikipedia). The cup OP referenced is a metric cup, a US customary cup is 8 US fluid ounces. Measuring cups can come labelled using cups as a unit, usually including a whole cup, and that is presumably what OP was referring to.

I'm sorry if you have encountered organisations affirming offering up children to a rape mob, but as I have explained, that isn't the usual Christian position on the matter.

There is a lot to unpack here. We are not told Lot's exact reasons for being willing to give his daughters to protect the angels, although it may be to do with customs in that society concerning the treatment of guests (and the contrasting treatment of women in that society). Nothing in scripture indicates that Lot's proposed course of action here was morally correct, and that he is flawed in this way is evidence towards the fallen nature of humans.

The only place where Lot is referred to as righteous is in 2 Peter 2:7-8, where the focus is on giving old testament examples where God judges the wicked but is able to rescue the godly, in the face of false teachers infiltrating the church. There the point that is made is not that Lot was righteous in offering up his daughters, but that during the time he lived in Sodom he had a very different moral outlook to the people among whom he lived. It is stated that he was oppressed or troubled by seeing the deeds of the people he dwelt among, and that may include the effect it has on his own soul in moving him to accept the attitudes of those around him (which we see play out in the incident where he offers up his daughters). No clear mention is made of the circumstances or reasons for Lot's being brought out of Sodom in 2 Peter.

The clearest statement we see in scripture as to why Lot was saved when Sodom was destroyed is in Genesis 19:29, where it says that God remembered Abraham. So Lot's salvation rests not on his righteousness, but on Abraham's intercession in Genesis 18:22-33 and God's mercy to him. The connection to Abraham is particularly important because Abraham is the one to whom God's promises are made, and who therefore constitutes God's covenant people at this point in biblical history. Lot's leaving Abraham in Genesis 13 is the start of a series of bad choices that separate him from God's people. Indeed, by the end of Genesis 19 we see Lot has fallen to an incident of incest with his daughters, and the descendants of this are the Ammonites and Moabites, who become significant enemies of God's people.

You should not assume that just because something is recorded in scripture (particularly in the narrative portions), that it is something that God supports. A large part of scripture is detailing the history of God's people, who are not always as righteous as they should be, and pointing to our need for a saviour, sometimes through the examples of sins from which we must be saved.

Similarly, since everyone except Jesus is sinful, we see even the most righteous people with flaws. This is particularly seen in the books of Kings and Chronicles where we see kings with the verdict that they did what was right sometimes doing bad things. To give some examples: David did what is right (1 Kings 15:5) and held up as a standard against which other kings of Judah are compared, but he sinned in committing adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). Solomon was renowned for his wisdom (1 Kings 4:29-34) and he built the temple, but he married women from the surrounding nations and ended up worshipping their gods (1 Kings 11:1-8), so we are told he did what was evil in God's sight (1 Kings 11:6). Asa did what was right (1 Kings 15:11) in removing pagan worship, but he did not do it completely (1 Kings 15:14), and he used treasures from the temple to buy the allegiance of Syria (1 Kings 15:18-19). Joash did what was right during the life of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chronicles 24:2), but turns from God after his death (2 Chronicles 24:17-19). Uzziah did what was right (2 Chronicles 26:4), but became prideful and sinned (2 Chronicles 26:16).

The bible teaches that men may never be subjugated like a woman, through a story of violence. It's also why homosexuality is considered morally wrong.

As I've explained above, that isn't what is being taught in the story of Lot, and it isn't an analysis of the event that is presented anywhere else in the Bible. I would like expand on the point about homosexuality though. The Bible's reasoning concerning homosexuality has nothing to do with any notion of "men being subjugated like women", particularly since such a line of reasoning could only really apply to male homosexuality. Rather, the reasoning is simply that it is not part God's plan for how human sexual relations should be, but that people are given over to them because of their rejection of God (Romans 1:24-27).

Not only that, women aren't allowed to reject their husbands sexual advances, rendering marital rape null. Even if the marriage was arranged outside of her say.

This is a separate point, and it doesn't come from any strict requirement in the old testament law, but from the advice given in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. There the advice is given equally to both husbands and wives, and does not licence the use of coercion or force in sexual relations with one's spouse. Here, Paul is responding to the statement in 1 Corinthians 7:1, which is that husbands should avoid all sexual relations, and Paul's response is that sexual relations within marriage are not wrong and that it is even good to have sexual relations to avoid outside temptation to sexual sin. What seems to be in view here is particularly a marriage where both spouses are Christians, and it is assumed they would both behave as expected of Christians in marriage, particularly the husband loving his wife as Christ loved the Church (Ephesians 5:25-33). A man not behaving in such a way towards his wife would come under church discipline. Of course, there are marriages where the husband may not be a Christian, but the same principles apply so any violence or coercion would not be right.

Rape or any other violence against women is not acceptable, certainly not in Christianity.

Well, the good news is that according to this list, your instance already blocks Threads.

10 minutes based on my experience.

To give a theological answer, no. A lich is usually understood as a sorcerer who has achieved an undead state or immortality, usually by binding their soul to the corporeal world in a phylactery. That does not apply in Jesus' case, since he did not pursue any sort of magic to avoid death, much less binding his soul to a phylactery. The resurrection of Jesus was a supernatural act of God, restoring Jesus to true life.

As to the second part of your question, I was not aware that holy water harming liches was a common trope in fiction (it is usually seen in reference to vampires), but even if it is applied to undead more widely, we have established that Jesus was restored to true life, not to any form of unnatural undeath. Moreover, holiness comes from God (that which is holy is set apart for God), and Jesus is fully God, so contact with holy things would not harm him. Indeed, Christ is now in the true holy place in heaven (Hebrews 9:24), which we can only enter when cleansed by his blood (Hebrews 10:19-22).

I'm glad my points we're helpful!

There is some documentation on examples in the Cargo book. The basic procedure is to put it in an examples directory alongside the src directory (and in its own subfolder if it has multiple files), and you can add an entry for it in the Cargo.toml (although it should automatically detect it if you put it in the examples directory, so that is only strictly necessary if you want to change the default settings).

A few things I noticed:

• In http::request::parse(), do you actually need a BufReader? It would be better to make it generic over something implementing BufRead, that allows what you have but also makes tests and examples easier since you wouldn't have to open a TCP connection just to do something that is essentially string parsing.
• In http::response::Response::to_string(), that match on lines 78-85 makes me uneasy, because you are silently changing the status code if it isn't one you recognise. It would be better to signal an error. It would be even better to just check when the status code is set (perhaps with a status code enum to list the ones you support, since what you have isn't all the defined codes) so that you can't fail when converting to a string.
• Consider whether you need a special to_string() method at all, or whether you can just implement Display (which gives you to_string() for free via the ToString trait).
• You are using String as an error type pretty much everywhere. The better approach is to create an enum representing all the possible errors, so that a user of your library can match against them. Make the enum implement Error and Display and it will fit fine into the rest of the error handling infrastructure. There are crates like thiserror that can reduce the boilerplate around this.
• You have an io.rs that doesn't appear to be connected to anything.
• You have a main.rs, which seems off in something that sounds like it should be purely a library crate. You probably want that to be an example or an integration test instead.

That's all I could see with a quick look. In terms of general advice: remember to look at warnings, run cargo clippy, and look at the API guidelines.

25 isn't too young, and makes sense if you have focused on education and career. I followed a similar path in that I spent a lot of time in education, only starting to properly consider courting someone around the age of 25 or 26 after I finished my PhD. Things were complicated somewhat by Covid, but I got married last year at the age of 30.

As to losing weight, I can't speak much from experience on that, but losing some weight may be a good idea, as much for your own health as anything else. Unless you are really overweight (in which case it is a medical issue that you should address), I think you shouldn't worry too much about it in terms of dating.