Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | colejohnson66's commentslogin

Yes it does. It just decays to a pointer at the slightest touch.

reply


There are differences. E.g. va_xxx functionality may be implemented either with a pointer or an array. The difference becomes visible if you try to pass a va_list to another variadic function and then extract it later with va_arg. About half of compilers will happily do that, and another half will refuse to compile the naive version. (There's a more sophisticated proper way.)

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/79897621

reply


[flagged]


Because doing a dance to avoid it decaying conveys better information to both the compiler and downstream users of your code.

reply


So what already happens, but worse?

reply


It's just another tool in the belt. Someone will say that's cheaper than rewriting in safe rust or whatever. (Apple must have a bunch of 1980s code written to 1980s standards. But that is their moneymaker.)

reply


Wasn't that due to trademarks?


We once did a hike from Chamberlain's Ranch down. No one else for 10+ miles until we reached the switchbacks at the end. It really depends on where you go.


"Can we do X, Y, Z?" Yes? Or maybe later?

It's so annoying. No means no, not "pester me later"!


Consent used to be "Yes" or "No" now it's "Yes" or "I'll give in later"


There's a reason the tech industry is said to be rapey. Such fundamental misunderstandings of consent likely do not ultimately stop at the digital.


Woman in tech (rare here, I know) and I can confirm, they don't stop at digital


I should not need extensions for a business to respect my privacy. It's as simple as that.

If you look at it through an equity angle, needing extensions relegates the negative effects to those that are already not "well off" — the technologically illiterate who don't know what to do or know someone who does.


So someone's refusal to make a couple clicks to install an extension necessitates: 1) millions of users having to click to get the annoying popup off their screen, 2) installing an extension to block those anyway, and 3) a more fractured internet where website operators outright refuse to serve content because of liability? I'd bet a very large sum of money that the technologically illiterate don't read anything on those popups and click "Accept all cookies"


How does someone's refusal to install an extension necessitate millions of users having to close the popup? I guess you mean someone as in "vast majority of population"?


Why is the government making efforts to increase technological literacy not an option?


A proper course in technological literacy would also necessarily include the fact that browser extensions are quite possibly not safe.


Doesn’t read like AI to me


Even then, the installer itself has administrative access already, should they choose to do it then.


Self-driving is a thing. Full self-driving, commonly known as "level 5 autonomy", has been claimed for over a decade. These claims have been made so many times it has a dedicated Wikipedia page!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...


So basically we don't have full self driving, not because it doesn't work but because the regulators haven't approved it yet? Seems a little misleading to claim this is some failure on the part of Tesla's technology


But those levels are kind of bullshit. If a car is autonomously driving but needs an attentive driver in the seat for legal reasons you're stuck at what, level 2? Even if you never actually need to override/intervene?

Teslas running the latest hardware (manufactured 2023+) and software are actually nearly there, IMO. I used it for two months and never needed to intervene. It's not perfect yet but I believe it actually drives better than most people now.

However, the millions of Teslas on the road with older hardware are absolutely useless in comparison where you will need to intervene a lot. The latest FSD software only works on the latest hardware so these older cars are stuck on either old FSD versions (which are proven to be bad) or get slimmed down versions to fit lower specs (which we know wont be as good). It's unsafe and they really should disable it for all of the older vehicles and issue refunds for people who paid for FSD.


The boilerplate of not having sane defaults. .NET is much simpler:

    using HttpClient client = new();
    HttpResponseMessage response = await client.GetAsync("https://...");
    if (response.StatusCode is HttpStatusCode.OK)
    {
        string s = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
        // ...
    }


That's just an example. It does have defaults: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.net.... (search for "If this method is not invoked")


Yeah, so much simpler,

"Common IHttpClientFactory usage issues"

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/extensions/htt...

"Guidelines for using HttpClient"

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/networ...

And this doesn't account for all gotchas as per .NET version, than only us old timers remember to cross check.


I didn't mention IHttpClientFactory - just HttpClient. I will concede that ASP manages to be confusing quite often. As for the latter, guidelines are not requirements anymore than "RTFM" is; You can use HttpClient without reading the guidelines and be just fine.


For various outcomes of fine, depending on .NET version, given that not everyone is on very latest.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: