If "X" is social media then so is YouTube.

No, that is the point, they are not going to accept your vuln report. They are taking a holiday.

In many scenes characters entirely change their shape in a natural or fluid way, because the cut-outs are being wholly replaced with different cut-outs from frame to frame, to simulate a natural/fluid motion. This is one of many techniques used in the film possible with stop-motion animation and impossible with shadowpuppets.

I watched the film and was quite impressed with the animation techniques used, although this isn't really novel but not because of puppets, animation actually goes back much further than film. It's a beautiful film though, and I can see why people preserved it.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2...

And then also (maybe this is absurd) isn't there something intrinsic in intelligence to want to avoid conflict and desire peace?

I will say to criticise that I started scratching my head when I got to the standard library. The functions should really just be C's standard library. I know there's lots of baggage but e.g. remembering that 'print(s)' will print with a newline and 'printn(s)' won't, this is just putting a barrier to entry that's not necessary. Sure, have some new functions for slices, but if you can help it use more conventional names from C.

And this is still a killer feature of asm.js, even if it's not 'supported' it's still implicitly supported.

EDIT: And also seriously just thanks to the people who invented asm.js, it was a brilliant idea, but it makes sense that it's not worth optimizing anymore.

You are taking them out of context (literally this is what you describe here, taking at face value a smaller quote).

I think your approach to interpreting the spec is not correct. This isn't code, it's a spec: it needs to be read in full context (even though a good spec would certainly be written in a less context-sensitive way, this is not a perfect spec -- have you ever seen one?). You're not a computer or a machine, you need to read it more like a human, even though we're all trained on the concrete mechanics of computer programming. Yes, even though it's describing a programming language, believe it or not. All specs have flaws and need nuance in those situations or you will either (for language specs) write code that doesn't work anywhere, or you will write a compiler that breaks code matching what the authors of the spec intended to allow.

> Right now it looks like you have an impression of UB that doesn't match reality.

I have an impression of UB that is not the convention, my post is criticising the convention. I am trying to give context and nuance where it is unfortunately lacking and now apparently quite relevant to lots of people. This can't change reality of current compilers, but maybe it can serve as a lesson in history.

It's not safe though because throwing an exception, panicking, etc, is still a denial of service. It's just more deterministic than silently overwriting the heap instead. If the program is critical then you need to be able to statically prove the full size of the stack, which you can do with C and C++ with the right tools and restrictions.

I don't think you could sincerely argue that this definition intends to allow the compiler to totally rewrite your code because of one guaranteed UB detected on line 5, just that it would be good to print a diagnostic if it can be detected, and if not to do what's "characteristic of the environment". Does that make sense?

  3.16 undefined behavior: Behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct, of erroneous data, or of indeterminately valued objects, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements.  Permissible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment (with or without the issuance of a diagnostic message).

By 'bounded', this obviously ignores the security consequences of e.g. buffer overflows, but just because UB can be exploited doesn't mean it's appropriate for e.g. the compiler to exploit it too, that clearly violates the intent of this paragraph.