Yes. Sex isn’t allowed on the ISS due to complications with pregnancy, but it’s not crazy to imagine that maybe they just did it anyway. (Who wouldn’t want to? It’s sex in space and it sounds amazing.)
> I thought "move doesn't move" was a fairly common C++ mantra at this point.
It is. The fact that std::move is just a cast and that move constructors are expected to transfer resources are basic intro to C++ topics, covered in intro to constructors.
It's far too late to put the genie back in the bottle, but I am morbidly curious as to why the standards committee didn't choose an approach that made moves destructive.
It solves some rare edge cases where the destruction of the moved-from object must be deferred -- the memory is still live even if the object is semantically dead. Non-destructive moves separate those concerns.
There is a related concept of "relocatable" objects in C++ where the move is semantically destructive but the destructor is never called for the moved-from object.
C++ tries to accommodate a lot of rare cases that you really only see in low-level systems code. There are many features in C++ that seem fairly useless to most people (e.g. std::launder) but are indispensable when you come across the specific problem they were intended to solve.
As someone who has actually had to launder pointers before, I would characterize gremlins like std::launder as escape hatches to dig your way out of dilemmas specific to C++ that the language was responsible for burying you under in the first place.
> When dealing with class hierarchies, destructive move semantics becomes problematic. If you move the base first, then the source has a constructed derived part and a destructed base part. If you move the derived part first then the target has a constructed derived part and a not-yet-constructed base part. Neither option seems viable. Several solutions to this dilemma have been explored.
Add this to my "C++ chose the wrong kind of polymorphism to make first-class" tally.
> Add this to my "C++ chose the wrong kind of polymorphism to make first-class" tally.
Is it really the "wrong kind of polymorphism" if it isn't causing any problem and it didn't prevented rolling out features such as semantic support for move constructors?
What would you want to happen when an object that's on the stack is moved? Do you want its destructor to run, or not? If not, how exactly do you want that to no longer occur? And what do you want to happen if the stack object is moved in multiple places? How willing are you to pay a performance or UB penalty for these?
It does put into perspective how phones fucked it all up. That Nintendo 2k1 is looking really good, with high information density without being overwhelming, and an overall nice design to just look at.
Nintendo 2k1 website [1] was god tier slicing with the curved layout, inset menus, and sprites for the corners, edges, buttons without transparency. The pixel backgrounds, fonts, buttons, shadows looked great on a CRT. Tried to replicate it myself back in the day with HTML tables.
Nice! As someone who built hundreds of sites using the whole "slice a PSD into a table-based layout with 1 or more arbitrary content regions" technique in the early 2000's, I totally agree this is a really nice design indeed! Though I notice it appears to be pretty inflexible .. I imagine the content areas don't expand or anything. Not that that matters, it's still a super cool design!
And what exactly is your point? You stated one side of the history but not the other. One can only conclude that you're implying "not communist" is good, when in fact that's just nonsense.
At the gym, which bombards us with propaganda on the telescreens, I saw him called a "jihadist communist". It was either Fox News or Newsmax. It's like they looked for the scariest word salad that would trigger their boomer audience.
I also doubt either channel can define communism or jihad correctly.
Indeed. The CCPA is welcome, but this explicit opt-out just means that only broccoli of the technical caliber that frequents HN will realistically benefit from the law. This needs to go a step further and make opt-out the default for all to benefit. And it is the social duty of the technical broccoli that understand these things that need to push this for everyone's benefit.
Are you willing to take a significant salary cut to benefit people?
All the big tech companies, Google, Meta, Netflix, etc make a huge amount of money by using Ads to push things people don't need onto them, brainwashing people. This brainwashing is massively more effective with data-collection.
If tech companies didn't hoard and sell people's data, the brainwashing would be less profitable, Google would pay lower salaries, and the entire industry's salaries would go down as a result.
Salaries in the US might drop from ~$500k to $250k for an average software engineer. Would you be willing to take that sort of cut?
You could also "vote with your feet" and move to europe where the GDPR protects everyone like you want, and your salary will drop to maybe $100k USD.
> If tech companies didn't hoard and sell people's data, the brainwashing would be less profitable, Google would pay lower salaries, and the entire industry's salaries would go down as a result.
I’d like to see data on this. Obviously Oracle and Meta and companies that agressively track you would be impacted, but how much would Google search be changed if it wasn’t personalized? Would there be a meaningful financial impact?
Also as far as I understand, data brokers tend to exclude meta, Google, et al because they don’t sell their data they just use it internally. This could further entrench these players more.
I'm not sure I fully agree that they shouldn't be allowed to use the active search query for picking ads, if that's what you're implying by "curious about". AFAIK that's the main (exclusive?) signal for Google's SERP ads.
thats a strawman, its not like advertisement & brainwashing people is the only way to make money in tech. I am old enough to have seen how valley was before this big-tech ad garbage showed up. In fact I'd say all this power with 7 or so big tech is hindering innovation, so, IMnsHO Fuck 'em all.
Asking 300M people to leave country and move to europe instead of fixing problems here is just stupid and at best a shoddy attempt at victim blaming.
I am still confused about this. Is the goal for US companies to extract Venezuelan oil, or is it to suppress Venezuelan oil exports altogether? Or are both goals orthogonal?
I don't think oil has something to do with this. As I have mentioned I think the main reason is the cartel has become too powerful and menacing, controlling three countries and expanding.
I still have my Nokia Lumia around. Best phone I ever had.
And I say this hating everything about Microsoft and Windows. That phone clicked just right with the tile design and overall usability. Of course, MS having pulled the plug, it's basically a DRM brick now.
Truly an underrated phone, this was my wife's phone when we met. Developing for Windows 8 was one of the best imo, I don't know any C# prior to it but it was just so easy, native and fast.
I agree but that's because both iOS and Android are pretty bad in several ways.
MeeGo from Nokia was pretty amazing as well and I'm sure it could have launched Linux phones into actual competitors to iOS and Android - if only Microsoft and Elop didn't manage to kill Linux at Nokia.
If Microsoft didn't kill it, lack of YouTube and other Google services would. That was the primary difference. With iPhone you had access to Google-owned stuff, Google never allowed other platforms like Symbian/MeeGo/Windows Phone to ever use its online services.
The game was broken from the start. Microsoft had no chance.
TIL: There is an arrow signaling which side to refuel a car.
And while I am only slightly embarrassed that I did not know this, I am more excited about having learned this now. Yup, I just checked my car and it really is there, guys.
I was scrolling down the comments waiting for the first comment from someone experiencing this revelation.
I only learned maybe 5-6 years ago -- but then, I only bought my first car at age 55, because I have a kid and moved to a tiny country with infrequent public transport.
reply