Ok let me get this clear, you're saying that the language is at fault because the programmers don't write correct code. I have no words.
91 karma · joined April 14, 2016
Ok let me get this clear, you're saying that the language is at fault because the programmers don't write correct code. I have no words.
No, it's pretty clear where the problem is with C, programmers.
The second example causes unexpected behavior (and probably ub later) if: min + step > MIN_TYPE_MAX
The last example causes undefined behavior if: max - min < step - 1.
assert( B < B_TYPE_MAX - 4 );
Or use an if statement if it could trigger at runtime.Also the code is clearer on intent.
And exits from your house would have to somehow be connected to those stations, or have your house change locations randomly.
The latter could work if houses were mostly in form of larger modular worldwide-compatible shipping containers. Also no windows, we would have VR.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-inside-tesla-gigafac...
DNA copying not being perfect would be the main cause in my opinion.
There is one error on average for every billion pairs copied. The human DNA has 3 billion pairs. So every time a single(!) cell is copied, three mistakes are made.
You don't need any radiation for evolution.
There is no evidence to believe the post reflects upon his real emotions, and since the man is untrustworthy[0], the post cannot be taken as evidence about his emotional state.
[0]:Whether he is willfully or maliciously deceptive is irrelevant. Even if he has the best of intentions, his behavior is still untrustworthy.
Here is an actual simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89AIsPTCJLs
It sounds cheesy but it true.
Brilliant!
I doubt that this is either serious (unobfuscated) or handwritten code though.
I have been using index instead of i in while loops lately. It's surprisingly concise.
&array[0] and array decay to the same thing, the pointer to the first element if they are used in an expression. But sizeof gives a different result, because array+0 'decays' to a pointer, and array doesn't.
Artificial example:
for( int i = 0 ; i < c+j ; i += b )
should be: for( int count = 0 ; count < sum+extra ; count += skip )
It may be allowed to use i in place of count here, but this is the only place where single name variables should be permitted and only if i is really just a simple array index iterator. sizeof( &array[0] )
This looks equal to: sizeof( array )
at first glance, which would give the size of the entire array in bytes, but of course the &array[0] expression is really: &*( array + 0 )
which simplifies to: array + 0
which is a pointer. And using sizeof on it gives the size of a pointer to int.Edit: (&* array) will also give a pointer.
---
This is just a really convoluted way to write 2:
&array[2] - &array[0]
&*(array+2) - &*(array+0)
(array+2) - (array+0)
2 - 0
Again I have never seen this written in such fashion.I think the opposite of a trivial culture is a culture of self improvement, and at least four of those six examples are ostensibly doing something to improve themselves. One is a competitor in online gaming, one is debating online, the two are watching and debating current politics, one is improving his body. Those are all meaningful activities. I understand that they are not intended to be in the context of the comic, and the visual space is limited.
Great comic by the way. Our society seems to be going the way of pleasure, but I don't think it will ruin us.
Also expect at least two forced action/drama scenes that never happened.
They are staging the Hong Kong hotel meeting, of which real footage exists, as if it were an action scene.