Kamq

29 ms·

241.
by Kamq 3y ago
I mean, just as an example, if you're working on a weird embedded system (so you can't really change compilers) where certain parts that are UB in the spec are guaranteed to have certain behavior? Additionally assuming function po
242.
by Kamq 3y ago
I don't see the one you're talking to on a brief skim, but there are several functions that deal with processing a file character by character. They generally use ints because they need a way to signal end of file and you can&#x27
243.
by Kamq 3y ago
I think that's just called android at this point.
244.
by Kamq 3y ago
> The point of writing code is having the computer do the thing you want. Correct. We definitely agree here. Most importantly, we didn't talk about the specification at all in this sentence. The behavior of the computer is what we
245.
by Kamq 3y ago
Then I completely misread the post. In my defense I went back and re-read it, and it still looks that way. But, y'know, tone and text and all that. I could always be wrong. What was the point then?
246.
by Kamq 3y ago
That did not seem to be the point of the original post that I responded to. Specifically, it seemed to imply that anything that was criminal could not be hacking. The legal status of something, seems completely orthogonal to hacking to me.
247.
by Kamq 3y ago
You're forgetting eliminating a potential threat. Which tends to have effects similar to what you've described. Land that isn't near a potential threat can be invested in much more heavily. Borders are easier to defend, etc.
248.
by Kamq 3y ago
I acknowledge all of your points, and agree to everything you've said. Except for the actual point that the compiler not being bound by any promise means you should never do it. If you want to walk it back to "it's very rare
249.
by Kamq 3y ago
> But as a user I just want the software that solves my problem from start to finish even if it does a worse job and costs more. Well, if you're willing to pay, there's a lot more options. You correctly identify the unix princi
250.
by Kamq 3y ago
Proper spaghetti code, in my mind, has always been pre-structured code. Which generally means assembly. C is rough to refactor sometimes, but it's nowhere near the kind of "push a couple return addresses and jump into the middle o
251.
by Kamq 3y ago
It also seems like an intentional wielding of Conway's Law.
252.
by Kamq 3y ago
> UB means there are absolutely no rules regarding what happens. I will acknowledge that the standard says this, but the original post said "you're not supposed to do that ever". Those are not the same thing.
253.
by Kamq 3y ago
I think it depends. To compare it back to the phone phreaker example, putting up a single cone that blocks something is roughly the equivalent of cutting a phone line. That is to say, probably not hacking. But what about when you add a leve
254.
by Kamq 3y ago
Understanding a system well enough to manipulate it in ways that the owner doesn't want seems at least in the same category of phone phreaker behavior. Which was also criminal behavior, but the point is that I don't think it autom
255.
by Kamq 3y ago
> It would take a decade to a thousand-person team By the standard conversion rate, I think that means 4 people could knock it out in 6 weeks.
256.
by Kamq 3y ago
> If the standard says that say, dereferencing a NULL pointer is UB it means you're not supposed to do that ever, on any OS or compiler. Says who? The standard doesn't say that. At most it says that if you're trying to wri
257.
by Kamq 3y ago
> You position your argument as a consumer, not a producer. I am both. > Under your suggestion I can take the GNU source code, add some stuff, fix some bugs, and release a binary-only version (presumably for money). Sure, but you can&
258.
by Kamq 3y ago
> Why would Hashicorp give the slightest worry to losing thousands and thousands of non-paying customers? The photoshop effect*. That is to say, devs that are familiar with it will push their workplaces, because it's a pain to pick
259.
by Kamq 3y ago
> and forget that copyright also applies to software code (something they don’t want eliminated or shortened). We don't forget at all. That's, like, half the shit we argue about. Get rid of it. It'll make the world a bette
260.
by Kamq 3y ago
My understanding is that PPXs allow arbitrary AST manipulations, which allow syntax extensions, whereas `go generate` just allows code generation.
261.
by Kamq 3y ago
> This is also bordering on giving capitalism credit for the rule of law. I'd rather go the other way, and give rule of law credit for capitalism. Probably one of its better effects. Capitalism requires an external neutral enforcer
262.
by Kamq 3y ago
But it is, at least their political system. But those are pretty intertwined in China, especially in that period. They imported Lysenkoism from the soviets (who also had massive famines while implementing it). Which is one of the reasons it
263.
by Kamq 3y ago
Which is an excellent example. Comparing absolute numbers isn't fair to China, but look at the percentage of the population that starved in each country during those relative time periods.
264.
by Kamq 3y ago
> The Roman state very very much had a monopoly on violence and roman agricultural tenants very very much were renting the landlords privately owned means of production. I call BS here. The Romans basically never had this. During the Rep
265.
by Kamq 3y ago
> But they would have done so without the Gracchi. I agree. I don't think the Gracchi brothers were essential to what happened. But they were in the middle of it when it did. Once it did, it basically guaranteed the later split into
266.
by Kamq 3y ago
> The abstraction facilities on OCaml are very explicit/non-magical. I'm talking about PPXs when I talk about magic in ocaml.
267.
by Kamq 3y ago
> A straightforward implication is that China is capitalist. Which isn't necessarily wrong But it is wrong. The Chinese government has demonstrated repeatedly that they are the de facto owners of, effectively, all of the wealth in t
268.
by Kamq 3y ago
There's a fundamental difference here in that these examples exist before the state had a monopoly on legitimate violence. Or, to put it another way, the large landowners you're referring to, also had large armies, the largest arm
269.
by Kamq 3y ago
> One of the problems with this whole "debate" is that defenders of the status quo apply a huge motte and bailey to the definition of "capitalism". Both strawmanning any criticism of it as a rejection of all aspects c
270.
by Kamq 3y ago
> The kinds of policies you'd need to close that gap in the US would be transformative. I disagree. When laid against things like the end of mercantilism, I don't think that qualifies as transformative. I think the effects woul

More ›