legalcorrection

I'm sure. It's really a lovely place full of lovely people. And the standard of living is still relatively high. They are their own worst enemies sadly.

>sigh what is the point. Might as well talk gibberish in this "us vs them" society

Yeah it’s too bad. The quality of service has totally gone to shit in this country. But God forbid you complain, then you’re a Karen. People are “nice” these days, but they forgot how to be good. A nice person is trying to avoid conflict all the time. A good person is willing to enforce society’s standards in their interactions with other people.

Incredible to see how many people in these comments are mad that someone dare challenge that their dear GNU/Linux is a great desktop OS. This is part of why it will never get there. The Linux community just doesn’t Get It. Too much autistic nerd energy, not enough people with a functioning sense of empathy.

In your world, disease and famine would be much more common than they are now.

It’s a false promise. You’re just moving the complexity elsewhere, into wiring this ridiculous graphql infrastructure together and making it actually do what you want in all but the simplest/tutorial-like scenarios.

Ignore all the noise and just use an RPC model between your backend and frontend. All these stupid trends and overengineered abstractions will come and go, but people will still be using plain RPC in 5, 10, 100, and 1000 years.

MSVC doesn’t enforce strict aliasing to begin with. And passing /d2UndefIntOverflow makes signed integer overflow well-defined. Even if you don’t pass it, MSVC is very conservative in exploiting that UB, precisely to avoid breaking code that was valid before they started doing this optimization (2015 or so).

Okay so take the two most complained about UBs, improper aliasing and signed integer overflow. Every compiler I’ve ever used lets you turn both into defined behavior.

Oh really? Then why does every compiler I use have a parameter to turn off strict aliasing?

You cite to a source that contradicts you. In the llvm blog post: "It is also worth pointing out that both Clang and GCC nail down a few behaviors that the C standard leaves undefined."

Your comment is indecipherable. It sounds like it might be interesting. Any chance you could rephrase?

It’s not the greatest but it’s also not awful. Ideally the 123 would be replaced by a less common sequence, and maybe add one more word, but as is, it’s fine.

These people are just regurgitating HN memes and then flailing when someone prods a bit deeper. C is basically the Donald Trump of HN. All rational thought goes out the door at the mere mention. In fact, you’re socially rewarded for joining the idiot mob.

Tell me, what’s wrong with variably modified types specifically?

You are confusing the C standard and actual platforms/C implementations. A lot of things are UB in the standard but perfectly well defined on your platform. Standards don’t compile code, real compilers do. The standard doesn’t provide standard library implementations, the actual platform does.

Targeting the standard is nice, but if all of your target platforms guarantee certain behaviors, you might consider using those. A lot of UB in the C standard is perfectly defined and consistent across MSVC, GCC, Clang, and ICC.

You are entering the function. It's not in the function body in the source file, but the code is almost certainly inserted at the beginning of the function in the compiled output.

This is a common misconception. Cold emailing is legal under the CAN-SPAM Act.

People reuse passwords and having your password appear in a list of known passwords, even without being associated to your email, is reason enough to change it.

This is wrong. You are logging their password attempts and then sharing them with the world. It doesn’t matter that you think you know they are scammers. What gives you the right to dispense vigilante justice by disclosing people’s passwords? Shame on you.

These days, if something is print only or has similar stupid hurdles, I suspect that the purpose is market segmentation. Some people will prefer to avoid the hassle and just pay full price or go without. Which means the company can offer that much more value to the people who are willing to go through the hassle.

Never underestimate how out of touch and incapable of understanding other people HN nerds are.

Orange man bad

Your position sounds much more religious and dogmatic than those held by the people you are arguing against.

The bureaucracy expands until external factors force it to stop or contract. Google Search and Ads are a small percent of the company but nearly all the revenue. It’s not hard to see how that can lead to runaway bureaucracy.

Not a good argument from you. As if the sheer number of employees is what made Google successful in the first place. And as if efficiency alone makes a successful company. Why would you think these things?

The US had the military might to extract total submission from the populations of those countries. Anytime someone attacks your troops, kill them and their family and raze their neighborhood/town. But that would obviously be at odds with long term and broader goals.

Will you tire of posting about this stupidity? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32117175

Everyone who goes to a coffee shop with their work laptop is probably connecting to a VPN over open WiFi.

The vast vast majority of Europeans don’t have unlimited data plans with unlimited tethering. Not sure why you would think they do.

For connecting between two Windows machines, I want to use the RDP protocol, but the built-in RDP client and server don't take care of the NAT/firewall traversal and such. Is there a software solution like TeamViewer or RustDesk that just does the leg work to set up the connection and then hands it off to the Windows built-in RDP libraries?

Wrong. They killed every white person they could possibly find.