487 karma · joined December 26, 2015
Is this an axiom?
I've never seen an answer to this question, which hints that the question itself is ill-formed.
> In 2010 Harvard found him guilty of research misconduct, specifically fabricating and falsifying data, after which he resigned.[1][2][3] Because Hauser's research was financed by government grants, the Office of Research Integrity of the Health and Human Services Department also investigated, finding in 2012 that Hauser had fabricated data, manipulated experimental results, and published falsified findings.[4]
That's for sure....
What do you think it should say?
So I doubt it will produce any reliable election answers.
https://nypost.com/2022/10/11/nyc-subway-murders-jump-to-hig...
"Oopsie, I already gave it to a stranger."
Just compare the footprints to real verified footprints [2]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/10/07/1204031535/fossil-footprints-...
[2] https://fineartamerica.com/featured/footprints-in-sand-on-be...
In C standard, it is not allowed.
> C11, § 6.4.1 Keywords
> [...]
> The above tokens (case sensitive) are reserved (in translation phases 7 and 8) for use as keywords, and shall not be used otherwise.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12286691/keywords-redefi...
> #define int long
Because you're replacing the int keyword with something else.
The standard says:
> 17.6.4.3.1 [macro.names] paragraph 2: A translation unit shall not #define or #undef names lexically identical to keywords, to the identifiers listed in Table 3, or to the attribute-tokens described in 7.6.
Technically, it's illegal to #define over a language keyword.
"Almost isn't."