belovedeagle

But it is: bringing the new stack into the cache, and eventually flushing the dirty one back to memory, is essentially the same as copying it.

> if it was smart it would have figured out that the value never was initialized.

But that's false, which just goes to show that the compiler writers know way more about this than you do. There's nothing stopping this from being linked into a binary which doesn't even call main, or which calls NeverCalled, etc. And I bet you will also insist stamping your feet that of course programmers should be able to construct function pointers - to functions like, y'know, Never called - from arbitrary bit patterns. You know nothing, but you're convinced you know so much more than those stupid compiler writers.

They did. "Undefined" doesn't mean "unconsidered by the committee", it means "do what you must for optimization".

And? This is only "unfair" if you assume that people should be taxed as a percentage of their income, but by moving to consumption taxes we discard that assumption.

Your conclusion is entirely unfounded. Returning the same result for the same input does not in any way refute the claim that it's random. It could just as well seed the RNG with the input or any number of other implementations.

Indeed, this is "guilty even when proved innocent".

> There are no ... Windows subdistros

That's a pretty naive trust in Microsoft's branding/marketing team. Of course there are heaps of different Windows distributions. They don't necessarily differ as much as, say, Ubuntu vs Gentoo, but they do differ.

> This is obviously not acceptable in a society that considers itself "free speech". It's free from legal consequences but when you shut opinions down due to "other consequences" you end up with the same result.

Which is exactly why the principle of free speech (as opposed to "the first amendment to the US Constitution") doesn't just apply to legal consequences, and free speech absolutely does require freedom from some consequences.

Those aren't products. Google's main products are advertising and user data. They can't be monopolists in markets they're not even participating in.

I have been assured by innumerable statists that the government invented the internet.

But I'm not sure in what market exactly Google is a monopoly? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of advertising and big data companies doing just fine.

> should be split up

It may be weird that no one is arguing that (maybe it's just no one you're listening to, or being allowed to listen to, though?), but it's not weird that it's not libertarians. The notion that some people shouldn't be allowed to form voluntary associations with others because they got "too large" is anti-libertarian.

That said, "libertarianism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are becoming too synonymous. As a libertarian (but not an ancap) I have no love lost for big corporations; I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments that monopolistic corporations are bad for society in general. However, because we must stand on principles instead of feels, the relevant principle here is that we have no right to interfere with others' affairs simply because they've chosen to pool their resources into free association, massive or otherwise (assuming they are not interfering with others' liberties, and I don't think there's a genuine argument now that they are).

All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state (e.g., via regulatory capture) and thus by reducing the power of the state we will actually achieve the desired benefit (breaking up monopolies) without infringing on anyone's liberties.

And to top it all off, they demanded a protection fee in cash and goods (the device) in order to stop the illegal hacking.

You're right; they're not all conspirators. However, as a non-expert I feel there is a good argument that there's probable cause that each account has evidence of the conspiracy.

But when you request the records of 1.3 million conspirators to riot and commit other terrorist acts, in order to find the 200 who actually did, that's quite reasonable. The stated goal of the website was terrorism (shutting down bridges, checkpoints, etc.). Every single account is quite likely to be evidence of conspiracy.

It's a website created for the sole purpose of promoting terrorist acts at a certain time and place. I think that's enough to say that every individual user account is suspect. I consistently reject government overreach but this isn't an example of that.

> they will find ways to circumvent any AI model

Not so; there's an easy and reasonable (/s) solution to the problem: only permit pre-approved speech. This can be done through AI and it will be difficult to circumvent.

However, a significant (not large, significant) proportion of Americans believe that the phrase "kill all the Nazis" is not hate because <reasons>, or at least is "justified hate", whatever that means.

> Can they potentially go to a new registrar and register it there, without additional hassle, and assuming there's a registrar willing to service them?

Not within 60 days, apparently. So I think that claiming that the domain isn't being withheld is disingenuous, because the registrars knew perfectly well that the outcome of refusing service within 60 days after a transfer was that the owner would be locked out of their domain.

The title of this HN post should mention that this is ZFSonLinux.

This is good news, but I'll definitely want to wait a good long while before enabling this in production. Yes, officially zfs isn't good enough to use in production anywhere even without shiny new features, but I reckon zfs as-is is better than some other filesystem.

Could this not have been fixed by prefixing the '--' argument on the command line, and requiring that all ssh implementations must implement that in order to be compatible?

Seriously, why are we still dealing with what amounts to a quoting issue in 2017?

Buzzfeed has a lot of good journalism, apparently. I never go to their site and seek it out, but when it's linked it's very good like this piece.

It shouldn't be so surprising; if CNN and NYT can fill their sites with clickbait, why can't Buzzfeed step in to fill the gap of investigative journalism? Hell, I trust Buzzfeed more than the other two; at least with Buzzfeed you can tell right away whether you're reading clickbait or real journalism.

I wonder - did they take steps to replenish the cave's oxygen? If not, it's useless for the next person...

I guess this is kind of silly and naive, but it's what I would do.

It has no x64 support...

But free speech rights do extend to those private spaces since the government can't of it's own accord order you out of that private space any more than it could a public space, nor punish you for speech per se in private spaces. Conversely, if by your speech or actions you violate the rights of others, whether it be some general right like private property rights or some privilege arising from private contract (e.g. an NDA), the government (even if only government qua the courts) can punish you regardless of whether you are in a public space or private. Hence we can say that the nature of the space you occupy is not relevant in general to freedom of speech, only when the specific nature of the public space further distinguishes cases where the government (qua the executive) is acting as adversary of its own accord. In my view it comes down to the distinction between places "owned" by the government as if by a private owner, and places "owned" by the government as custodian of the commons, but that's obviously an insufficient legal distinction.

> Appropriating other people's work by copying the code and changing the license is IMO immoral.

> [GPL is bad, mmkay?]

I'm not sure the author even knows what the FSF stands for.

Condointernet got acquired by Wave (branded Wave G); then they fired most of the condointernet staff it seems. Wave recently got acquired themselves so we'll see how much worse it gets.

And popular opinions are not provocative, by definition. Why would one pour substance into a comment which will be flag killed anyways, instead of simply saying what one means succinctly in the hopes that approximately four people will be exposed to ideas they've never been exposed to?

Is "inflammation" a function of opinion popularity?

It's not bike-shedding when the actual goal of the committee is to determine a color for the bike shed.

jj is on the home row...