Chad Strings – The Chad way to handle strings in C
github.com
github.com
> just calls str()
> refuses to elaborate further
> leaves
https://github.com/alcover/stricks
Sorry for the plug but I'm depressed by its lack of success..
Drop something great onto humanity, leave to do your own thing, away from the haters and whiners.
That's a chad move right there.
C will be here for new code for a long time, whether you/we like it or not
But I do give you that the number of use cases where C is required are decreasing rapidly.
How about "I like it"? (I used to program in C++ 20 years ago..but not in many years. I just prefer C.)
Its not bloated with feature creep like C++ is. Some modern C++ code looks like an Egyptian hieroglyphics.
So please don't write code in C++ /s
Bitching about lang A > lang B is sign of immaturity. Every language had/has a use and arguing about what is better doesnt get anyone anywhere.
Its immature to suggest rewriting backend of some bank written in COBOL half a century ago, because Go lang is so much better. That would be a suicide.
No sane person will propose to use COBOL for brand new project.
Again my point is that bashing - modern, in use - languages is stupid thing to do. Current languages are used for a reason. Speed, convenience, libs, support etc.
Going back to C++ vs C. Have a look at Linux kernel written in C++.
Languages are tools, and each tool has its purpose and should be chosen for a purpose.
There's no reason to use C: it's not faster, or more convenient, or more amenable to library use than C++. C++ has every single advantage of C and then some. That's just a reality.
And yes, I can and will bash C.
Anyone is entitled to live in a their delusions, no need to apologize.
Tell me how are you going to write a driver for you new device your company is shipping? Or write firmware for it?
C is a container ship that carries the world's trade on its back, and you come here trying to sell rockets as new means of transportation. We will see if truck are still here in 30 years :) vs some fad language that is going to be forgotten in next few years.
But sure, keep spewing your incorrect assertions.
Uh, exactly the same kind of static analysis that applies to C applies just as well to C++. C++ doesn't have a magically different execution model. What do you think std::string is except a few wrapper functions that boil down to the same operations you can do in C?
I'm sure we'll get there one day. Frama-C is inching toward it at molasses speeds.
But right now, C is undeniably easier to verify than C++.
If they operate at some compiler IR level (e.g. LLVM bitcode), the difference between C and C++ verification is nothing. C++ is purely a front-end thing. Why should formal verifiers operate at the AST level?
So the only safe place to use this is if you're developing a libc and/or a C compiler, or an OS including those.
It's also trivial to change them, if you get a conflict, since it's a header-only library.
I don't think many people are going to use it because of that.
MIT is for the "I have better things to do with my life than caring about what you do with my code" chad, (L)GPL is for the apprehensive virgin.
Charity and generosity is chad-like.
Haha, fantastic.
Absolute chadman.
Amazing.
-chad
Though really, memes on a readme shouldn't affect technical decision making.
Its... not actually mean in the context of the meme. But... yeah, meme culture is weird. Its kind of comparable to South Park's "F Word" episode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_F_Word_(South_Park)).
The words "virgin" and "chad" have changed meaning within the scope of the meme, must like how the F word changed meaning for the south park episode.
But on the other hand: its silly to expect everyone else (especially people who aren't into meme culture) to understand the joke. Knowing how the words are interpreted outside of the meme is also important.
--------
With that being said: I don't think anyone meming "Virgin or Chad" actually wants their code to be used professionally. Its a joke: and the code itself is likely a joke. I'm interested in reading over the .h to see how it works later, but I imagine that its probably got a bunch of weird stuff going on.
Even Rimuru Tempest gets superpowers (Great Sage) because he died on Earth as a 37 year old virgin. Or if anime references don't work... 40 year old virgin movies or whatever.
It seems like one of the few thing you can poke fun at without people actually getting super serious about.
--------
As I said elsewhere: I know there's a growing group of incels who are taking this virgin stuff very seriously. Literal violent acts because they feel like they feel like the chads are taking all of the women or whatever.
But there's a larger group of people who are just innocently joking around with this meme.
It's about context. Maybe if the incels become more popular, I'll hush up about these virgin jokes. But it hasn't really crossed my threshold quite yet.
Are you saying that movie doesn't stigmatize male virginity? From its wikipedia page:
>The film was criticized by Harry Forbes of Catholic News Service for promoting "the false premise that there's something intrinsically wrong with an unmarried man being sexually inexperienced,"[41] and by political columnist Cal Thomas for being an example of societal decline in regards to "self-control or what was once known as purity."[42]
I mean, I guess it still falls on the trope of "the hero gets the girl" at the end, if that's what your problem is? A lot of what his friends do get in the way of him actually having a successful romantic experience with the female lead.
-----------
I dunno, reading those reviews kinda reminds me of one review I read for Frozen: where they were critical about "Love is an Open Door" and failing to understand the satire. Sometimes there are messages behind the message...
Maybe that's the point. Now the author's work only benefits the kind of people who won't be offended.
/r/GamersRiseUp went that way: https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/fefycf/whats_...
But think about the general implications: the general idea of 'Virgin vs Chad' is that 'Chad' gets more sex than the Virgin. Its basically incel logic in some regards, or glorifying toxic masculinity to an extent. Its innate to the meme.
So it is what it is. Like many things on the internet, its kind of a mean message if you stop and think about it. On the other hand, I know its "just a joke" (but I'm aware that some "joke" evolve over the months and/or years into... well... not jokes. Serious things).
Context for everything. Maybe the incel community will suddenly adopt the meme and use it "seriously", which would make it unfun. (I don't follow many incel groups, so I wouldn't know if they picked up on this meme yet). Kinda like how "Red Pill" was fine when it was just a Matrix reference, but suddenly turned into right-wing virtue signaling... the underlying context and/or culture behind the meme is often more important than the actual message.
That said, I see where the github creator is going and can have a chuckle at this and still cringe, but he probably had no idea of how this would be received by non bro-grammers. Everyone needs to learn that ignorance is no excuse at some point in their lives. And that's a hard lesson to learn when you are from the apex intersections.
But it's also not just a joke. It's really sad and depressing because incels are real and there are real people who think and perceive reality through those fucked up lenses.
I don't want to understate them as a threat, but I don't want to overstate them as a threat either. Nonetheless, they are becoming more-and-more violent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Mass_murders_and_violenc...
Its definitely one of those things we need to keep an eye on. If they get more violent and become a larger movement, it could be dangerous.
The grievances they air easily turn into mass shooting events. They're beginning to recognize each other as martyrs (ex: Nikolas Cruz memorialized Elliot Rodger). For some reason, they're able to find each other online and push each other into extremism and even violent acts.
Don't let the threat of incels keep you up at night
Roughly on the same scale as other domestic terrorists: eco-terrorists, abortion bombers, and other mass shooters.
And it should be noted that unlike eco-terrorists or abortion bombers, an extreme violent incel wants to kill people as part of their grievances... and not just cause damage.
You don't have any evidence at all for that, do you? You have no idea what the real number is.
> lightning strikes,
About 20 people each year in the US die by lightening strike. That's not many.
The fact is there's massive inequality in dating. Just like inequalities in the economy, this leads to radicalization. Here's some articles that have been posted here on HN, they offered far more nuance than the typical media post:
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/06/comparing-income-sex-...
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-roman...
I don't know what the solution is but writing these people off as terrorists just doesn't seem right to me.
The minute a group starts pulling out the guns and shooting people, they are no longer just "sad people", they are now "sad people with guns and violent tendencies".
Look, Jesus said to love your neighbor and I get that. Unlike a lot of people, I don't wish death to ISIS or Al-Qaeda or Palestine or Hamas. I understand their perspective: they see America as a world power stomping on their culture and demonizing them. I don't wish death on any group of people.
That doesn't change the fact that they've declared themselves to be enemies and are actively trying to kill us. So an appropriate response is necessary. It also should be noted that individuals with violent tendencies tend to kill people who are closest to them. (Shootings, even "Mass Shootings", are rarely random. They're often at parties, or workplaces that are socially-connected to the individual). Trying to socialize with a violent person actively puts you in their crosshairs. So its necessary to understand the scope of the violent threat.
------------
Incels have similarly taken the step towards violent domestic terrorism. They've begun to organize and recognize each other as martyrs... those who "die" for the cause. It is what it is. At some point, you need to start actively defending yourself against a growing threat.
I don't know when that point is: a few more mass shootings perhaps? They've already accumulated a number of mass shootings under their banner: so its only a question of how many before our collective consciousness is tipped off. But its worth talking about at this point, but never appropriate to panic about it.
I don't think Incels as big of an overall threat as say... ISIS / Al-Qaeda. But unlike ISIS / Al-Qaeda (who operate in the Middle East), Incels do primarily operate inside the USA. So they're less dangerous, but they're closer.
----------
On the timescale of my memories, Al-Qaeda existed before I was born (as well as other various extremist groups of the Muslim world: Wahhabisim, Hamas, etc. etc.). On the other hand, Incels have gone from literally zero (non-existant) into... well... existing. That's a growing threat. Its not as big as others yet but anything that's growing, dangerous, and domestic deserves eyes.
We also live in a country where gun background checks are easily avoided. Violent philosophies quickly turn into actual violence, because there's an easy and legal means to purchase weapons. If our laws demand that we can't stop distribution of weapons, it is only natural to take a step back and start analyzing violent groups from their philosophy. We don't really have other means of control.
When i see this, i think it's reasonably funny, i understand it might upset some people, but i also think, what's wrong with virgins? I know some people might be of the view that associating the so called "less desirable" traits with virgins is "unfair", but i just see it as, funny and dumb that people would actually believe that has any validity, because it presupposes some idea that virgins are bad. So what's wrong with being a virgin? I hold all these competing interpretations in my head at once but i don't let the ones i dislike win out, i just keep my own. I think the ideological purity requirement where you demand other people drop interpretations that you dislike, is toxic because you think you can control other people's thoughts, saying other people are "wrong" because of an idea in your own head, and failing to grok the key personal responsibility boundary that other people are not responsible for your feelings. If you arrive at a set of interpretations that you find personally upsetting, change the set, because you're giving validity to that interpretation that you pretended to disagree with, because if you had your own interpretation that disagreed with that you wouldn't be so troubled by these other ones you dislike. I agree that this is s hard thing to do sometimes, but precisely I think to the degree to which you are internally validating the interpretation you find repellant. It's actually very helpful to shift your own perspective, in these cases.
Don't confuse this with other cases where it's more clear cut and people are doing something bad. I'm not saying "interpret" away bad intent, or bad actions, just... In cases where you can see the competing interpretations, (maybe indicated by the fact that there's a lot of other people who are not troubled by this and think that it's okay, which is perhaps a defining characteristic of things where you shouldn't be interpreting away the bad intent or bad actions are where the majority the vast majority of people not just people in your echo chamber but the vast majority of people find these thing repellent and bad and only a small, generally regarded as twisted, minority think it's acceptable), but when you have a case like this where there are competing interpretations, and you find yourself arriving at interpretations which you dislike then don't require everyone else to change and drop their interpretations, or not say the things they think, rather just own your own reactions and change your own dominant interpretation in your head. Say you don't like this because you make it mean people are saying virgins are weak and awful, and you're a virgin, so you feel people are attacking you. But say you also feel deep down that there's nothing wrong with being a virgin. So just hold to your own interpretation and make that dominant. So you think it's funny because all these people are counting on the implicit association that virgins are not good but you think what's wrong with being a virgin so you think it's funny that all these people have that belief. That they have that belief doesn't affect your belief and trust in yourself. But if deep down you really hate yourself then you'll have to change that belief but if you do hate yourself then that's not something you can blame other people for. so if you hate yourself you can ask other people to stop saying the belief that you feel is a reflection of your own self-hatred. because because what they're saying only has significance to you because you already believe it. In either case of you blame others for your reaction, you have the concept of responsibility all wrong and it will get you in a bond. So hopefully this helps you out if that's the case. This thing i described is actually really effective for a lot of situations (not just this one) particularly where there's ambiguity and where you don't really understand what someone meant when they did a certain thing. Don't be trapped by other people's interpretations, and especially so when you're maybe just imagining what they are, rather than knowing, but in either case, hold your own dominant interpretation that you like. Then you won't be troubled. And if you're not troubled, then everything's good. I know this is not easy, from personal experience, but it's possible and it's effective. So if you try it i think it might work for you ;p ;) xx
However in the context of the GP, they're 100% correct in the sense that this isn't appropriate for the workplace. So it's kind of a shame that it's actually technically very good/useful.
The author is free to do whatever they want. I'm not asking them to change, but it's definitely a shame to tie this otherwise good code to this meme.
Maybe that meaning wasn't in the mind of the creator at all. Or maybe the people who you believe think a certain way actually feel another way about it. Whatever the "meme trope" or specific "meme instance" creator intended it to mean (if anything), that doesn't mean that's the "only" meaning a thing can have.
It might mean one thing to some person or group and something to you. To me it's funny that they think associating negative traits with "virgin" is a valid comparison. To me, it's obviously not but so laughable that while the jokes the people are making about coding, to me, are funny, the ways they frame it, is funny for being so immature.. But it's humour, I don't want to "explain" it. Maybe they use this meme with irony, appropriate the "chad-virgin" dichotomy, in a satirical way, as they think it's false.
Seriously, who cares? Who cares what the creator made it mean, in the basic sense. Because you have the power to interpret it your way. Why limit your joy by thinking, someone somewhere might see this in a way they dislike, therefore I cannot enjoy it. I know it's not easy, because you can be aware of how other people might take it, but that doesn't mean you have to align with that. Otherwise the world is this network where everyone's watching everyone else for "heretical behavior or thought" and trying to bizarrely punish that, just because they can't make a good boundary between their thoughts and feelings, and everyone else's. Everyone can make it mean what they want. It's a subtle point, easy to nod at but hard to actually grok what that means. You're judging this work, and this meme based on what you're making it mean, based on how you're choosing to interpret what you believe some other group of people, who you believe it's connected to, makes it mean. You're hostage to what you think are the beliefs of some other group. I don't think you're crazy, but I think that idea is crazy, because you're free to make it mean what you want. It's pretty common nowadays tho I think.
Again saying it's not appropriate to the workplace is a whole other set of relative value judgments and interpretations. Because the word "virgin" is included and maybe someone can connect this meme to some group they're afraid of or they judge as bad, therefore a workplace is unable to handle that? I think that says something about the toxic/unworkable fragility of workplaces. We should be robust enough to be able to consider these cultural artefacts without creating danger or toxicity. If we cannot consider something, we're unable to really reflect on that, and I believe the workplace culture can be at risk of emanating those things it will not allow itself to really engage with or see. To be it's an obvious but also subtle point. We won't allow ourselves to look at a sort of implicit bias that might be present somehow in one interpretation of a meme? Then we also won't see it in the workplace. And "everything's fine" when really a workplace culture is toxic. Introspection and criticism can be shielded behind the arbitrary "area denial" system of "inappropriate for workplace". There's clearly lines (i.e, people just casually sharing porn in a non-porn-industry workplace, totally uncool, right? because that's some private intimate activity related thing that has nothing to do with sort of workplace relationships)...but sharing memes and humour? That's not ok? I've noticed European commenters say before that American workplaces are too afraid of themselves. I don't know if you're view comes from that basis or not, and while it's subtle I believe these sorts of dynamics (of workplaces creating traits they censor from consideration) operate. I think the notion that they simply must be censored from the workplace is false, and relates to that bad idea of ideological purity I was talking about. Our workplace should be robust enough to view the thing in the frame we choose, not hostage to the frame we are "afraid to name".
You've pretty clearly stated how you feel in no uncertain terms. I understand that and I accept that. I have clearly stated how I feel. My thoughts/feelings are my own, and I don't need to radically change the way I think or view the world because I'm being held under some yoke of some imposed belief or way of thinking. We disagree. That's fine. It's obviously not going to change but please don't proceed with this idea that I just don't "get it".
The work is intrinsically tied to the meme. That is how I feel about the meme. Authorial intent, whatever it may be, isn't particularly relevant in criticism beyond the subjective interpretation of whether they achieved it or not. I don't know and neither do you as neither of are the author and I don't see them spelling it out. I'm sure they mean it as a light-hearted joke, but I still disagree with the idea that it is funny.
I'm not here to change (and am certainly not able to change) what does or doesn't fly in the offices of Corporate America. Culture vary (as do opinions as previously stated), but even if you think this is funny I wouldn't recommend you use it or share it around in the office for due to the potential consequences of the implications and language it contains. Whether that is good or bad morally or for our society or culture is also a matter of opinion and beside the point.
Personally I find a lot of humor in other things that I don't think are appropriate for the workplace or a professional setting. I don't feel restrained under some yoke of society, there is just a time and place for certain things. People very naturally change mannerisms and ways of speaking to tailor them to whoever is on the receiving end. There is a pretty obvious and the reason is pretty simple.
I guess if you really want to push it all the way out sure, I'm crushed under the yoke of caring about other people and having empathy. I guess I'm okay with that. But I'm not a hostage to what I think someone else beliefs are. I'm a hostage to my own, which include generally trying not to be an asshole.
Make of that what you will, but I am my own person. I'm not missing some greater truth or liberated way of thinking. You're quite literally also evaluating things based on a relative set of value judgements and interpretations the same way I am, they're just the ones you have and ours are different.
As previously stated, I'm not asking/imploring/demanding the author to change anything. I'm just sharing how I feel about it.
Am I hearing you right?
Yeah, I agree with you about most of that (not that agreement is important, disagreement is to be expected, everyone's different). The way your first two responses came across to me (my interpretation ;) ;p)) was that "this is how it is. No questions." I didn't detect that qualifying and empathetic, "This is how I feel, but I get and respect other's may feel differently about that." If you had that expressed in there, I missed that and if so I'm sorry that I did! :p ;) xx
While you did did mention your personal reaction to the joke itself, you seemed to frame as objective your beliefs about the larger "memetic context", to me at least.
You raise an interesting point that I was thinking about as I wrote but struggling to express in my responses. What's the connection between "being an inconsiderate asshole", "empathy" and "having proper boundaries / personal responsibility for your own thoughts and feelings" ? I'm glad you raised it. I'll try to think some more about it and write some clarity. I've been thinking about this for a while, but haven't really tried to write something clear about it. This could be a good chance, have a great day! :P ;) xx
edit: I think some clarity about the above is, you can have empathy for how other people think and feel, but that doesn't make what they think and feel neither "objectively good" nor "good for you". One extreme example: you have empathy for the rapist who is raping you, you feel their loneliness, fear of weakness and desire for love and validation, but that doesn't mean you need to "not be an asshole" and "consider their feelings" in terms of "act in line with their feelings." You can consider someone's thoughts and feelings and have empathy for that but that needn't constrain your behavior at all.
It's interesting to me that you seem to conflate the two, vis: "I guess if you really want to push it all the way out sure, I'm crushed under the yoke of caring about other people and having empathy. I guess I'm okay with that. But I'm not a hostage to what I think someone else beliefs are. I'm a hostage to my own, which include generally trying not to be an asshole."
The moral compass that constrains behavior is not set by what other people decide their feelings and thoughts are. Otherwise everyone's moral compasses are in the Bermuda triangle, never knowing which was is up. You need something more than subjective feelings and personal thoughts, as important as those things are to consider, to set morality for the bounds of behavior.
I think caring about other people, and empathy does not imply, acting in line with how other people think and feel. But it seems from your responses, that you do think that: We shouldn't enjoy this meme, or this code, or share it at work, because people might interpret it in a way where they have "negative" thoughts and emotions about it. That's basically how what you're saying seems like to me.
Perhaps we simply disagree on this point, and that's cool. What I see you saying is (ignoring further nuance I'm sure you use in practice), "Before taking any action, I must assess the thoughts and feelings of those around me, and if there's any chance I may upset someone, or they may otherwise call me an asshole, then there's no chance I will take this action."
I would love you as a friend, as I'm sure most people would. But you seem a bit of a pushover people pleaser. I'm worried for you that you'd get yourself in situations where you're always saying yes to people, have a hard time setting your boundaries, and slowly build up resentment because you didn't learn how to hold your space or your frame. I'm not trying to generalize or say that's who you are, just moving on from the "decision process" I (perhaps mistakenly) characterize about you above.
I suppose for me, I also struggle with this, and I'm still a work in progress and working it out, but my "analogous decision process" I think is more like, "Before taking any action, I empathize with the thoughts and feelings of those around me, and if there's a chance of them being upset, I consider whether there is a some basis in reality for them having that reaction, which I also agree with, and if so I'll reconsider what I do. Otherwise, then do it."
Also, personally, being a supermpath, I'm aware how people who are not great, can use that empathy against me. They can blame me for how they feel, knowing that I will readily see their side of it, and effortlessly feel their feelings about it. It took me a long time to learn the importance of that boundary that other people are responsible for their thoughts and feelings, as well as to stay in touch clearly with my own. Not I think it's something really important. I suppose that's why I'm so engaged in this topic.
So I see you characterizing the alternative to your preferred route (a route which you see as having "empathy", and which includes not sharing this, not enjoying this work, and warning other people about this work), as being an "asshole".
I think I get where you're coming from, you just don't want to see anyone upset, nor anyone who you consider "not good" enjoying what you perceive as a bad joke. But to me, that perspective is missing something. It still goes back to what I said at the start about trying to ensure everyone feels the same about it as you. A lack of tolerance for the other viewpoints, because you've prejudged the one true meaning of this as something absolutely bad and inappropriate.
To me it seems like assuming other's will share the narrow reaction that you (and which you believe, the people you care about) have to it, is actually tthe perspective lacking empathy for the diversity of other people out there. Likewise with characterizing people who act differently to you as "assholes", who by implication, don't have "empathy" you profess to have in your responses. It seems that very characterization is what lacks empathy in this scenario. Unfortunately for you, because I think that's quite sad, to be accusing other's of being asssholes and of lacking emapthy because they differ from your view, and preferred course of action, which in fact seems like a very selfish, and self-centered position to take. And seems to be not seeing that perhaps that accusation is levelled without empathy and without awareness of being an asshole in the levelling of it. It seems like a way to hide behind something, or perhaps hide from self-reflection, so it's "others" who do wrong, and "you" who are right. As if it's inconceivable that other responses to this could exist which are not "assholes without empathy", because if any dare's step outside the line of what you feel about it, they are assholes without empathy. But you're the asshole without empathy to make that characterization, I think, and provide that shield against self reflection is dangerous.
But like I said, I'm not an expert in this an am actively, if not working this stuff out, then working out how to clearly express how I feel about it. I just think you could benefit from opening up to a diversity of viewpoints about it rather than being so absolutist in how you feel, while pretending that's having empathy. It's not. You can be sure of how you feel, but also not pretend that sets the moral compass for everyone else.
Just because noxious gasses are released into the atmosphere doesn't mean you stop breathing on your own.
ignore "toxicity" (if you are around people who think that way i recommend finding better people) embrace clean libraries
You recognize this recommendation as cancel culture, right? Because you're treating discussion of toxicity as toxic, and trying to avoid it by dissociating from people who dislike toxicity
They throw the word around like it's a catch all to excuse their bad behavior when they should realize the only "toxic" person here is them
Also it's not cancel culture; picking better friends is not cancelling someone. I'm not recommending trying to get them fired or saying awful things about them. Just find better friends who don't see the world in such a narrow view that they can only claim things they don't like as "toxic".