skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
With the caveat that my knowledge of Bitcoin is limited, I know I can't be bothered to use it because

- Stories about transaction fees that are more than the cost of something you would buy with it ($25 at on point)

- Stories about Bitcoin exchanges (if I have that term right) where the person in charge just... took everything and ran; and anyone with money in it just flat out lost it

- No way to reverse a transaction if you are scammed (vs a credit card where you can almost infallibly get a transaction reversed)

- Stories of exchanges failing and everyone losing out... whereas in a bank, the FDIC handles it for you and you get your money back

Now, I may be wrong about some of that... but those are the stories I hear. And, given them, why would I even bother to try Bitcoin?
lol, you can continue trusting anecdotes from internet. Industry prefers more scientific methods.
Not sure what you mean. My point is, for the case of no GC, you have to provide a destructor, even if the work done by the destructor only consists of freeing memory. With GC, calling the destructor could be omitted if it only frees memory. Client code however doesn’t know what a destructor does internally, so always has to call it even under a GC. The implementation of the destructor, however, can check whether it is running under a GC, and can then skip the freeing.

Edit due to your edit: An arena allocator isn’t always convenient, for example when you have multiple objects with different lifetimes that move and/or partially share internal elements between them, so the element lifetimes are largely orthogonal to the containing object’s lifetimes.