mehrdadn

20 ms·

151.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Logically you'd expect unsubscribe to only act after lots of bounces of this format when the address has been receiving mail fine before. It also seems reasonable not to trust such bounces for the entire domain for a while when this ha
152.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Keep in mind other stuff like DNS will go down randomly. At least they won't result in a permanent address-doesn't-exist error, but you'll be putting out potentially more fires that way.
153.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
> UB wasn't meant to forbid anything, it was meant to allow implementers to offer different behaviour. That's unspecified behavior, not undefined behavior. Unspecified behavior can literally do anything or nothing at all, inclu
154.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
It's underspecified, but it is normative. While it's not mathematically inconsistent for the sentence to be redundant/superfluous, it would be rather silly and misleading. It's reasonable to assume it's there for a
155.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Interesting. So I went back to look at the standard. Like you said, for the relational operators <, <=, >=, and >, they do explicitly say comparing unrelated objects is undefined behavior. But as you suggest, for == and != e
156.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
> On Windows you often need either a prohibitively expensive software suite or go on an ad infested crapware hunt resulting in a borderline unusable tool. For basic audio/video stuff on Windows, try http://avidemux.source
157.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Might be a VoIP thing?
158.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
> Yes, I know. That's irrelevant here for two reasons: firstly, the pointers might compare equal (which is all that matters for this argument), and secondly, once again, the comparison isn't being made between pointers, the c
159.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
They don't contradict to my understanding (see below). First, regarding comparing pointers vs. integers, that goes back to what I said about identical pointer representations as an integer. Just because two pointers point to the same m
160.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Does anyone have more reading on this? Sounds interesting. I know Windows 7+ x64 has a user-mode scheduler but I hadn't heard of a Linux-based OS supporting this. How does it handle blocking calls and such?
161.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Comparing pointers derived from entirely different objects (or arrays) isn't legit. See here: https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0576/ "Pointer arithmetic is only defined for pointers pointing into array
162.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
That seems like a non-sequitur. How do "the intention is GC support" and "the C++ standard may remove concept" imply "these two are not the same concept"? To my knowledge safely-derived pointers are entirely ab
163.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
But this is LLVM IR, not C. It feels like a trick question (hear me out). Either with IR semantics the code is already UB (as in C), or it isn't. If the code isn't UB, then why? The obvious assumption is that it's because LLV
164.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
If you enjoyed learning about pointer provenance (called "safely-derived pointer" in C++ [1]), you might find the recent addition of std::launder() [2] interesting. [1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/m
165.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
This is... wild. I had no idea attrribute((cleanup)) was a thing in CNU C. Did the C folks finally discover the concept of a destructor? What's the point of resisting C++ so adamantly if they're going to introduce the same feature
166.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
That sounds both useful and horrifying. Do you use this for CI scripts? That's where I've needed this kind of functionality.
167.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
I'm not really sure how to summarize it but I guess you could say it's both powerful and intuitive.
168.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
If you're looking for an IDE I recommend Visual Studio. (Classic, not Code. Yes, on Windows.) It's awesome.
169.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Ouch, okay thanks!
170.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Oh wow I see, thanks for the pointer! Looking it up now, it seems the increased risk was 1 in 18400, or 0.005%. [1] So I guess it was rare enough that it could easily not have shown up during trials either. One key point in my question that
171.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Question—have there historically been any comparable vaccines whose problems have become apparent long after the shot (> 6 months) while having seemed fine before that?
172.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
(Layman here, take everything with a truckload of salt.) I'm actually not sure they're "very" different risk profiles, though it isn't unreasonable to assume that before you analyze the situation further. My reaso
173.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
> California Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Mark Ghaly on Tuesday acknowledged the state’s regional prohibition on outdoor dining has more to do with preventing gatherings and limiting movement than the activity itself. “The
174.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Others already responded with STEM examples... but since you said "anything", I'll go in another direction and also point at GDPR.
175.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
If you want to enable tracing you can just bash -x
176.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
More, yes, but it's not at all difficult for me to imagine it still ending up being a small chunk of the population anyway.
177.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
It might work, but I'm not sure this is proof of that. Say you're currently in $30k college debt. You're basically being asked to pay $30k to protect your privacy. Would you pay that? Is it irrational to reject it?
178.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
> The adverse effects for some of our kids will likely last for generations. I came to comment the same thing about this quote. I don't understand how he comes to this conclusion either. Anyone know?
179.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
> I am aware of no data that some of the business activities [...] are the major drivers of transmission This suggests he is aware of data indicating that some of the business activities being restricted drive transmission, just not
180.
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Wikipedia explains it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzing

More ›