On the flip side, one reason I'm sticking with my old cars and not considering buying a new one any time soon is because I really like the fact that they lack connectivity of any kind. They also have real control knobs and no touch screens.
Folger's Crystals already did this experiment this back in the 1980s. Then they publicized the results ad nauseam.
No.
This room-temperature ice is simply a plot device that demonstrates the sheer stupidity of human behavior.
If you set up a market, and multiple people who actually had $1e100 put in a bid of that amount for your stupid crypto, then at least for that instant it was worth that much. It may not be worth that much later, but it would be NOW.
FFS, how can you have such a hard time understanding such a basic concept?
If you automate everything then you break the social contract. Millions of unemployed people lead to unrest in the land.
Winning is losing.
Luckily for the Chinese, they're allegedly communists.
"From each according to his ability" - that would be the robots.
"To each according to his need" - those millions of people.
We'll see whether it pans out.
By definition, what things sell for now is what they are worth now.
Why don't you go to the next board meeting of a typical publicly traded company, offer to buy them out by giving them its liquidation value in cash, and see what happens.
Competition?
The headline should read "Microsoft to replace one TSMC chip with different TSMC chip."
I assumed that they're dividing the entire cost of creating, testing, packaging and delivering updates by the number of GB distributed. ISP fees would be a tiny fraction of that.
Why would anyone calculate such a silly metric in the first place? It sounds to me like the kind of thing an accountant would think up.
MAC addresses don't leave the local network when using TCP/IP. I don't understand this part of the article.
Maybe they're using IPv6, where the MAC address can become part of the IP address.
I can't wait to see all of the thoughtfully planned, rigorously tested and highly secure applications that will be put into service using this capability.
So don't use STL
Indeed, No True Scotsman would use STL with C++.
clang-tidy and Cppcheck and flaw finder and Sonarqube
The last job I had where I had to use C/C++, we automatically ran an expensive static analysis tool every time we checked in code. I'd estimate that it only found about half of the potential segfaults, and it made up for that by finding twice as many false positives.
The "rules" of mutable collections in STL state that collections may not be mutated while being iterated.
Nope. If I had used st::list instead of std::vector, it would have been perfectly fine and officially supported. (Assuming I changed "i+10" to "i+11" in order to make the algorithm actually terminate, although that change wouldn't affect the vector crash.).
The problem is that there are dozens of different rules you have to remember to apply to the different types of lists and iterators. And that's only talking about that one topic. There are hundreds of other rules covering a multitude of language aspects that you have to mentally apply against every single line of code you write, many of which can potentially cause memory corruption.
You don't need the language to enforce memory safety to program memory-safe. The most important thing is, for example, to never touch raw pointers. C++ makes it very easy to avoid this. Rust forces you to avoid it, but just because C++ gives you the loaded gun, it doesn't mean you have to use it. In particular not on your own foot.
That is a dangerous misconception. You don't need to use any pointers to get memory errors in C++:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>
int main() {
std::vector<int> v = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9};
for (auto i : v) {
if (i % 2 == 0) {
v.push_back(i + 10);
}
printf("%d\n", i);
}
return 0;
}
$ g++ -Wall -pedantic t.cpp
$ echo $?
0
$./a.out
1
2
-947527061
1600570778
5
6
7
8
9
languages like Rust exist to put ignorant programmers in straight jackets for their own good
Are you seriously trying to suggest that never allocating memory is not also a "straight jacket"?
You seem to be saying that a currently existing bowdlerized version C++ is safe for close-world problems. Possibly so, but that still leaves C++ unsuitable for open-world problems. That makes C++ only suitable for niche applications. Why learn it?
If you just use Rust or any other memory safe language, you won't have to worry about what kind of "world" you're writing for, or about choosing from a range of increasingly dangerous "profiles".
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
