Apple was already a multibillion dollar company almost 30 years before the iPhone was invented...

(though I'm sure you will have no trouble inventing some other reason that that wealth, too, was created through exploitation)

The context of this thread is that someone stated that the C++ standard library sucks, and someone replied to them saying that it's just some implementations that suck, but that's separate from the language. The point I'm trying to make, in response, is that it is about the language. It's not just "some" implementations - there is no implementation of the C++ standard library that doesn't have these inefficiencies, because the language's own standard requires them.

(This is tangential but - this is why I often say that C++ is not actually the most complex language in the world, it's just over-specified. If you took almost any popular programming language and wrote a document dictating the behavior of every single feature and library to the same level of detail, you would end up with a document similar in length or even longer than the C++ standard.)

Very serious, though in practice it doesn't sound like this bug achieves arbitrary RCE on its own (especially in the presence of ASLR). You would need there to be some writable and executable page of memory lying around.

Automated verifiability goes down once a software project incorporates things like:

- Concurrency

- Networking / distributed systems

- Visuals / animations

- Domain knowledge (e.g. banking, finance)

There is something about intelligence that seems to carry a degree of... moral responsibility, somehow? Though in reality it's just an animal eating another animal, as ever.

> Now, we all know that it can take a while to find a long sequence of digits in π, so for practical reasons, we should break the files up into smaller chunks that can be more readily found.

> In this implementation, to maximise performance, we consider each individual byte of the file separately, and look it up in π.

So, they're naturally able to influence the West way more than the West can influence them.

Whereas my point is moreso when, the variables really are correlated but it's purely due to random chance. Not bullshit, per se, just bad luck (or possibly, p-hacking).

(Though the solution to both is the same - you shouldn't trust a study until it's been independently replicated on new data.)

That often results from p-hacking. In a world of infinite variables, if you look hard enough you are guaranteed to eventually find two completely unrelated variables that correlate with each other over a statistically significant period of time.

As a love letter it's very sweet - you clearly have found something special.

As life advice - I mean, not everyone's ideal relationship is gonna look like this, and that's okay too.

> Slots are stable for the life of the process; the heap grows with distinct content only.

So how is a program supposed to handle lots of unique content? Like a web server handling user requests?

A macro like (logged-fn) that defines a function which logs the arguments passed, is wonderful.

But if you see a macro like (validate-report), something very wrong happened.