But for anything else I wouldn't.

The entire chain will be affected from the different tokenization on down. Even if it lands in roughly the same semantic area, it doesn't mean it will land there with anything like the same syntactic selections. Anywhere there were multiple near-tokens could easily select a different route based on even minor fluctuations in the starting conditions. It's chaotic.

They'll do this kind of stuff even if we require spybotting the entire internet. Kids already lean on sketchy older siblings or friends or stolen/fake credentials to acquire booze illegally. Getting them to sign up for and verify online accounts would be next. Or paying/doing favors for random sketchy adults. Or buying them online, as the original article mentioned.

Anything more than the equivalent of "mark this device account as being PG/PG-13/Adult" isn't buying more security for kids, just more intrusion into the lives of everyone else, while pushing access into a black market that will create new dangers for the kids entering into it.

A device flag enabling an http header indicating a device account is "PG-13" could still allow a kid to sign up to non-adult sites online, but then have appropriate restrictions on usage etc applied to the accounts. Kids can access their friends, maybe the media cuts off during school hours, but they don't feel the need to escape the system, and are more likely to stay within it.

Requiring invasive overbearing authoritarian systems be put in place with the excuse of saving the children won't accomplish the stated goal, just the unstated one.

Wanting the government to levy a society-wide information tracking system because you don't want your child to be upset at you is incredibly selfish.

it's the old 80s/90s bead curtain separating the adult movies area from the rest of the video store. it keeps kids reasonably separated, and leans on parents making their kids mind. I think that's a reasonable target.

it would work without forcing every internet user that wants to use a given service from having to submit government identification, go through interviews, or sign up to massive centralized identification systems that will inevitably track every movement people make online.

if history is any indicator, those things will lead to breaches and abuse, and people's privacy will be violated.

if there's a legally mandated way for parents to stop their kids from peeking through the internet's bead curtain, that should be sufficient for most purposes.

if the argument is that bad or foreign websites might not implement it, it's not wrong, but that same problem exists with the mass-surveillance methods as well.

if you keep going down the path of forcing everything, eventually you end up with a national firewall, vpns are illegal, anything that can provide anonymity or pseudo-anonymity online is illegal, no one has privacy, and busybodies will spend all their time hunting folks for liking things they don't want them to like when the inevitable breaches come.

to your last point, sure, a 14 year old shouldn't be able to just wonder into a liquor store, but a 40 year old should.

it tracks how tall each columns write is so you can use it to only write the diff between it and the voxel behind it, skipping writing anything at all if the voxel behind is shorter than the current height.

So once you're done rendering front-to-back, you've got a y-buffer of highest-writes you can slap your blue sky across from highest-to-screentop on each line, avoiding the need to clear by write the sky to the full screen before starting the render.

wouldn't be surprised if it's because they don't have to pay out for AI music.

the author admits you can parse signed integers in their second example, but for unsigned, they don't like seem to like that unsigned parsing will accept negative numbers and then automatically wrap them to their unsigned equivalents, nor do they like that C number parsing often bails with best effort on non-numeric trailing data rather than flagging it an error, nor do they like that ULONG_MAX is used as a sentinel value by sscanf.

I'm not sure what they mean by "output raw" vs "output"

    $ cat t.c
    
    #include 
    #include 
    #include 
    
    int main(int argc, char \* argv){
    
      char * enda = NULL;
      unsigned long long a = strtoull("-18446744073709551614", &enda, 10);
      printf("in = -18446744073709551614, out = %llu\n", a);
      
      char * endb = NULL;
      unsigned long long b = strtoull("-18446744073709551615", &endb, 10);
      printf("in = -18446744073709551615, out = %llu\n", b);
      
      return 0;
    }
    $ gcc t.c
    $ ./a.out 
    in = -18446744073709551614, out = 2
    in = -18446744073709551615, out = 1
    $

I don't see anywhere they describe what they are representing in the raw vs not columns.

if true, your claim of the inability of the financial worker sector to absorb masses of workers dumped from a company going under due to fraud committed by the company sounds like exactly something that a social safety net would assist with, giving the workers a larger space to safely transition from one position to another.

an emotional appeal to insist on allowing a company engaged in criminal acts to persist because it might have a negative impact on those working for it isn't logical. if the company valued its employees, it shouldn't have engaged in fraud and been folded under as it deserved.

in jq, the comma separates expressions, which independently yield values. a span of such expressions is called a 'filter', since they are always run by passing values from the prior filter into them (with the initial values sourcing from json objects on stdin, or an implicit null if you pass -n to the program).

    $ jq -nc ' def x: "a", "b", "c" ; def y: 1, 2, 3 ; x, y '
    "a"
    "b"
    "c"
    1
    2
    3

    $ jq -c '. + 10, . + 20' <<< '1 2 3'
    11
    21
    12
    22
    13
    23

    $ jq -nc ' def x: "a", "b", "c" ; def y: 1, 2, 3 ; [x,y] '
    ["a","b","c",1,2,3]

    $ jq -nc ' def x: "a", "b", "c" ; def y: 1, 2, 3 ; {"foo": x, "bar": y} '
    {"foo":"a","bar":1}
    {"foo":"a","bar":2}
    {"foo":"a","bar":3}
    {"foo":"b","bar":1}
    {"foo":"b","bar":2}
    {"foo":"b","bar":3}
    {"foo":"c","bar":1}
    {"foo":"c","bar":2}
    {"foo":"c","bar":3}

    $ jq -nc ' 1,2,3 | 10 + . '
    11
    12
    13
    $ jq -nc ' 1,2,3 | (10 + .) * . '
    11
    24
    39

    $ jq -nc ' (1,2,3) as $A | $A + $A '
    2
    4
    6

for example, this runs `. + 100` parameters context, with `.` as the 10,20,30 passed to it:

    $ jq -nc ' def f($t): 1,2,3|$t ; 10,20,30|f(. + 100) '
    110
    110
    110
    120
    120
    120
    130
    130
    130

    $ jq -nc ' def f(t): 1,2,3|t ; 10,20,30|f(. + 100) '
    101
    102
    103
    101
    102
    103
    101
    102
    103

    $ jq -nc ' def m(todo): [.[]|todo] ; [1,2,3]|m(. * 10) '
    [10,20,30]

the idea that you should just blindly trust code you are responsible for without bothering to review it is ludicrous.

gnu sort can spill to disk. it has a --buffer-size option if you want to manually control the RAM buffer size, and a --temporary-directory option for instructing it where to spill data to disk during sort if need be.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest...

only congress can change the name.

any reasonable person would have known they were interrupting emergency services. not a lawyer, but surely something akin to gross negligence would apply?

if op is trying to cast someone making up rules in their head and going vigilante to enforce it on everyone else out of some sense of self-righteous indignation as some sort of heroic action the government is unfairly attacking, I doubt they're going to find many friendly to their perspective.

skepticism is necessary, but not sufficient.

if they merely nay-say institutions and then go with their gut, it's certainly not.

only when someone attempts to rationally disprove a position, offering alternate testable theories and actually performing those tests is science done.

if you suspect an institution is wrong, that's fine, but it's just a hunch until someone does a test.