You're probably right when it comes to benefiting the company, but technically - at least for me - using only https://www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr means no ads/sponsored/whatever. Only the posts I actually want to see, and chronologically so easy to continue where you left off. I don't understand why this isn't more common knowledge but have been using this for years and it makes the whole platform usable exactly for what I want to use it for: tracking things which haven't moved on from it yet without being forced to consume anything else.

Btw there's also https://www.instagram.com/?variant=following which does something similar on Instagram.

Would be pretty interesting to figure out if the amount of dopamine really is smaller. I'm not convinced.

But anyway: the bigger picture I've been wondering a lot about lately is whether this dopamine addiction is ok to begin with. I've never had much issues with the 'truckloads' OP names but all things considered my life is basically a journey from one dopamine shot (coffee ritual, sport, problem solving, sex, music, drugs) to the next and everything in between feels not too interesting. And I'm fearful for what's going to happen when I can't do some of those anymore when getting older.

I'm sure that's a thing for some people. And there's research to back that up IIRC. Even seemingly silly things like the smell of a wet forest being beneficial.

One aspect which stood out for me is 'awareness'. I find it deeply fascinating how many people, as I used to be one, can just stroll through everyday locations without even knowing the names of the most common plants let alone think about their connection to the surroundings. Once I started to realize how unaware I was of this I started forzing myself to be more aware and it's fascinating how much there can be going on in like even 1 square meter of nature. And of which I only know a fraction.

And for me this is really meditative - even though it's somewhat counterintuitive. Meditation is usually about clearing the mind, but for me being in nature and filling my mind with thoughts about the whole interconnection of individuals in ecosystems can bring peace and relaxation. Well, as long as I do not think about how we're collectively destroying a lot of it.

I do, and I've seen it in others, but from the limited data points I've seen there's no causal relationship with age. I.e. what I've seen is people largely oblivious of nature/ecosystems/flora/fauna sudenly becoming very invested in it, for various reasons, but this doesn't happen at or only beyond a certain age. For me it was around 30 but that's simply because of a series of coincidences (new house, large garden, needed solution for mowing, happened to see a 2nd hand scythe, looked into grassland ecology, etc). But I know people whos obsession started at 16 and at 60 and like everything in between.

Note there are various species who're oligolectic meaning they only collect pollen and nectar - and hence pollinate only - a single family or sometimes even single species of plants. Moreover they are usually also better at pollinating than more generalistic species especially honeybees.

I do think about that, when needed. My point is that these containers can be 'good enough' in places where it doesn't really matter, not that they're always the go-to thing. E.g. I really don't see any issue using a map as part of a configuration type of object which gets read from args or json and which only gets used once at application start.

It's really hard to take your comment serious because of generalization like this. Maybe they're not usable for your particular usecase but that doesn't mean they suck. Just like there's a 'million' ways that C++ sucks in your book, there's a reason there's millions of lines of code out there where these containers are valid usecases and hence work without issues whatsoever nor a need to replace them with something else.

Sort of (I mean: seeing void* and a size probably means 'arbitrary sequence of bytes' or something like that, but well it's void* so it can be like anything whereas with std::span you get more of a hint what's going on just based on the type), but not at the callsite which is what the author is referring to when it's about reinterpret_cast.

> I think the point is that it adds security, which the other options don't

Imo span also does that to some extent, but already when writing the code and not afterwards in e.g. static analysis. E.g. if I get an std:span I'd have to do counterintuitive things to misuse it. Annotating a void* still leaves it a void* which I then need to cast to char* if I think that's what it is intended.

Don't get me wrong: I've written my fair share of void* but these days I really feel like there's almost always a better thing which can be used instead. Though I do admit that since I've written and consumed a lot of code with such alternatives I'm not hindered by readability/apparent complexity of it anymore but I understand that's not the same for everyone.

Fair point (although to be honest: 'complexify' feels a bit of an exaggeration here to me), but the answer to this why is simple: document and express intent clearly. The compiler gave you an error first such that you're forced to consider what you're doing. Any seasoned C++ developer seeing this knows what this reinterpret_cast means.

> Wow. With std::span the complexity-meter bumps in the red zone and goes even higher!

Same remark: yes, it's a bit more text to read, but again: to me (and many others I'm guessing) this clearly expresses intent. I also do not find it particularly hard to read. I mean, it's C++, you're likely going to encounter templates at one point or another, except in super specific software perhaps. But no-one also ever argued the C++ learning curve was easy, and trying to make it easier by refusing to use features which were added for good reasons and instead going back to constructs which are the very source of those reasons seems a bit backwards.

> As a nice addition, if you use SAL annotations, the function could be decorated a bit to help code analyzers detecting memory bugs

Some might also say it complexifies and uglifies the code. And in any case makes it non-portable on top of that.

Anyway: you can calculate things for your particular rendering framework all you want, that only tells you when that software considers something visible, and you're still missing the extra frames the GPU driver or the monitor itself might add.

In the end total latency can ime only be measured accurately by measuring both the time when you send your 'show' command and measuring when the thing actually becomes visible (photodiode on the monitor, or one of those expensive monitors which can e.g. output a TTL signal upon seeing a certain pixel value).

But I was talking about partying: there's a fair share of EDM I can party to without any drugs. Goa trance is the main one btw. And I still get the feeling of connection with the rest of the crowd.

The nice thing if you find something is that it's also sustainable - as in: can do this for the rest of your life - which at least for me is definitely not the case with mdma.