f33d5173

The syntax is rather confusing. This is not an array of length 1, but rather a pointer which points to a memory segment which is at least 1 integer long. In other words, any array of any length (>=1) would be a valid argument to this function. "static" here means "don't do the normal thing where you totally ignore the length of an array argument to a function (which is, like usual, really just a pointer)". "static" was chosen because the keyword was available rather than because it was a particularly descriptive name.

  $ gcc -Wall -Werror -x c - << EOF
  void f(int x[static 1]){}int main(){f(0);}
  EOF
  <stdin>:1:37: error: null passed to a
      callee that requires a non-null argument
      [-Werror,-Wnonnull]
    1 | void f(int x[static 1]){}int main(){f(0);}
      |                                     ^ ~
  <stdin>:1:12: note: callee declares array
      parameter as static here
    1 | void f(int x[static 1]){}int main(){f(0);}
      |            ^~~~~~~~~~~
  1 error generated.

It can be done, though it usually isn't.

The point isn't whether it's genuinely plausible or not. If there is some law against something, there is some group of people who believe very strongly that this law should be followed and enforced. If the law is not actually followed or enforced, then the system as a whole does not agree with that small group. The point of this "plausible deniability" is to allow whichever regulator is concerned to give a pass to rule breaking without explictly doing so and hence angering this small group.

> An issue with that approach is that a lot of humans violate traffic laws, so you have the danger that your self driving system learns to violate traffic laws.

Phrased another way, a benefit of that approach is that if the local conditions necessitate or advise breaking certain traffic rules, your system learns to do so while retaining plausible deniability that it isn't intentional.

It was a rhetorical question. Usually decisions in democracies require a 50% majority, as here.

Banning faangs from doing something also bans small companies from doing it, and regardless prevents the user from receiving it as a service. You shouldn't let anger at large companies excuse stupid regulations.

Corporations are you. Corporations provide a service to individuals, often in exchange for money. Restricting corporations from doing something is the same as restricting people from receiving that as a service.

What percentage of the vote was required to join the EU? The EU effectively constitutes a relinquishment of sovereignty, but that's not how it was sold to citizens, they were told that they could leave at any time.

3000 years of philosophy, but fortunately you're here to tell us "war exists, so nothing can ever be bad or good".

> But your definition of processed foods has now shifted to being one of hyperpalitability and likelihood of overeating.

that's a very small shift. the two are very closely linked

> why have this proxy at all

very simple reason: if i am in the supermarket i can tell immediately looking at a food how highly processed it is.

we have spent many decades telling people "just don't overeat" and it hasn't worked at all. we have also spent many decades telling people that "unhealthy" can be established by looking for a particular ingredient, say sugar, or fat, and it again hasn't helped.

the heart of the advice we would like to give people is that a healthy diet isn't one that has the exact right nutrient balance, but rather one that causes your body to naturally pick the amounts it needs. and we would like to communicate this advice in a way that makes it easy for people to make purchasing decisions.

"health" as quantity of nutrients doesn't really make sense. pretty much everything we eat is good in some quantities, and bad in others. so there's no nutrient that you can name that makes food unhealthy (there are some like trans fats i guess, but mostly). then what makes some food "healthy" and other food "unhealthy"? there is actually a simple answer to this question: foods which lead you to overeat them are unhealthy, foods which don't aren't. so then the relation between ultra processing and health become obvious. processing is expensive. the reason companies do so much of it is to get people to eat more of their food. food that has been ultra processed is pretty much guaranteed to cause over eating and hence be unhealthy. food that has not been processed usually will only lead you to eat a healthy amount. so "ultraprocessed" is pretty much the same as "unhealthy". furthermore, as above, defining "unhealthy" directly is tricky, because it doesn't directly map to the nutrient content of food. so a good proxy metric, like "ultraproccessed", is useful.

Ireland can claim that actually they'd rather it be gaelic. It has the perception of a colonizer language for them too.

CMS here not referring to content management system?

An index is an index. It works fine as an index if it excludes one or two stocks. People seem to forget as well that this is a question of waiting a single year before it including the stock. It is literally just long enough to make sure the price settles, it's not some catastrophic thing.

China is.

Usually in a first amendment sense legal consequences specifically. More generally we would probably require freedom from physical harm by non state actors, freedom from employment consequences, etc. All of these are consequences which freedom entails freedom from. That's what any freedom means.

> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

"Freedom from consequences" is fundamentally what freedom is. Such a stupid slogan.

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're discussing threats. Serious threats are made seriously.

I didn't see it mentioned that this hid ads. I would be surprised if it did, since facebook makes way more than $4/month off many of it's users, they would be leaving a ton of money on the table if they only charged that to remove ads.

Unix has always had incredibly weak protections between users. You shouldn't rely on it as a security boundary. Think of it as a "keep honest users honest" protection. And llms are not honest.

No they wouldn't. A fundamental part of a threat is to make it very clear that there's a threat. The reason you threaten is to get some concession, otherwise you wouldn't bother threatening.

My current regex looks like this:

  ^(\w*)://www.reddit.com/(?!r/[^/]*/s/|media|gallery|notifications|appeals)(.\*)

Mapping to

  $1://old.reddit.com/$2

Here's the OSS users disclaimer:

I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN, WHINGE, CRITIQUE, GET MAD AT, OR OTHERWISE COMMENT ON ANY AND DECISIONS, COMMITS, PATCHES, MARKETING, OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BY THE PROJECT. THESE COMMENTS COME WTH NO WARRANTY FOR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF BEING CORRECT, USEFUL, OR KIND. SHOULD MY COMMENTS PROVE UNWANTED, YOU RESERVE THE RIGHT TO STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE.

Feel free to print out this disclaimer so you have a copy to reference whenever you come across unwanted criticism of a foss project.

I really don't get how people don't realize that this "they can do whatever they want" stance cuts both ways. Users can do whatever they want as well. If they don't like something, they can express it...

Companies tend to comply with laws in the dumbest possible way just to be jackasses. If you want a company to release the server, write a law that says that. Otherwise, companies will find a way to comply with the law in the worst way possible. An easy one here is to make the game subscription based, but only for californians. When you go to shut down the server, just don't renew the subscriptions. And if anyone complains? "Nothing we can do, california made us do it!" (nevermind that an alternative form of compliance existed)

If it was only a small cluster of employees bottle pissing then this would make sense. When it's endemic across the company, that suggests it comes from incentives set at the top, and the low level managers can't individually do much about it.

Instead, the government does it themselves based on regular politics and moral stances.

Yes, if you're going to bother to respond, you should use words, and not mere guttoral gestures like a cave man. I consider this an advancement of society and not a regression, but perhaps that's my particular bias.

It wasn't that long ago. Maybe someone stuck a thermometer down there.

Are we doing "i just cant even" posting in 2026? Wastewater is not expected to be safe as drinking water, so it meeting the standards for drinking water shows how safe it is. If you have a reasonable argument to the contrary then please post it.

It's not something you need to complete. A bullet train is worthless if you don't make an entire line. A bullet bus is just an upgrade to an existing bus route. Suppose you create a busway, but never manage to get the buses on it to go above 85mph. That's still a win. Suppose you do let them go at 140mph, but only on some sections. That's still a win. You can do it incrementally and stop at any point, and still reap the benefits.

It's also something that deliberately takes advantage of existing rights of way rather than trying to forge new ones. Hence it would have a vastly lower propensity to get mired in litigation from every hamlet along the way.