What a mess. We should just return to catholic monarchy or at very least restrict voting to a trusted nobility. Democracy is really just a euphemism for rule by the media, and the media just serves private corporate interests. it’s unrealistic to trust the average layperson to make decisions on matters of state. I wouldn’t trust my cook to cut my hair.
Personality traits that are intrinsic, thus suggesting women are intrinsically less inclined to engineering. (Note: I don't agree with the thesis, but that's the implication).
No, he explicitly states that women roughly have same average iq as men and are equally competent and capable to do engineering work.
OTOH personality traits aren’t distributed equally between men and women. Personality traits don’t impact your ability to do engineering work, but they influence What type of workplace culture / communication protocols in which you can thrive. Damore advocated for making engineering cultures more accommodating to people who have personality traits resembling the distribution that women exhibit.
I think the good-faith view of this is that Damore claimed that were engineering changed a bit it'd be more appealing to women. So women - according to the thesis - intrinsically less inclined to do SW engineering as currently practiced.
It was baseless. You had no evidence CJK will not be supported. It was just a baseless condemnation of the project because the readme referenced suckless.
I'm keep saying this (and it's mentioned in the original comment) - it's not criticism to the project, it's criticism to the 'suckless' philosophy. I have total respect to the project, and I believe that if this project can succeed in having comparable features with less complexity with FreeType, it will be great.
Also, the mention of CJK support is based on my personal experience. (I've mentioned it here[0], previously.) Much bigger open source projects like whole linux distributions or even proprietary software companies don't do CJK (or at least Hangul) properly. I'm pretty sure, from my experience that a small library fails to do it properly. If it does (as I've mentioned above), it would be great.
You have to keep saying it because you haven’t explained why referencing suckless has any bearing on whether the project will support CJK. In particular you have no basis for this statement:
“Ok, this is a bit of a offtopic rant, but this project seems to be aiming ‘suckless’[0].
For me and a lot of users, that means that this project probably won’t be useful for a lot of non-ASCII users, especially for CJK users like me.”
Sounds like you’re just having an emotional reaction instead of engaging his point in good faith. If you’re so empathetic, maybe you should remember that the person who made that point is a human being and not a monster.
There's not really a point there, just ignorance on display. People throughout history have starved in gutters for want of money for food, yet here he is espousing the idea that if you just want it hard enough, you'll find the money to eat, regardless of price gouging, shortage or whatever else. This is just factually wrong.
And if you end up going without, that's your issue. Not only that, but that's the best and fairest system, the way it should be! This is a pure expression of "Fuck everyone else, I got mine"
> maybe you should remember that the person who made that point is a human being and not a monster.
Yes, totally, because saying their posts are ignorant and cruel is totally the same as treating them like something other than human.
My intent, like the sister post claims, is to help the folks who are in the most dire straits, with the least access to food or money.
If we arrange the rules of human behavior, such that there is an incentive to create a surplus of food and money, then the poor will be much better off.
Those who have tried to simply make a law that says "no one is allowed to die of huger" have created monstrous regimes which led to the starvation of millions.
There actually was a point. His point is that, while it might seem counterintuitive, allowing suppliers to price with demand may improve the situation for the majority of people, even if that permits a minority of individuals to fall by the wayside. He’s making a plea to look at this from a systemic angle. You totally missed that because you jumped to demonizing him for even suggesting the idea.
If you’re hearing “fuck everyone else” that’s pure projection. You’re obviously putting words into his mouth. That seems cruel to me and counterproductive.
You should be more empathetic when you discuss with people on the internet, assume good faith.
I have assumed good faith, I have not once assumed them of being dishonest or disingenuous. I believe that they believe what they are writing.
Neither am I demonising someone for suggesting the idea that demand pricing may improve supply. I'm pointing out that their statements are inaccurate and their attitude cruel. If I'm demonising them it's for their attitude to other humans.
> If you’re hearing “fuck everyone else” that’s pure projection.
"If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it."
"The hungry can communicate their immediate need for food on the spot by forking over the cash."
"Hunger is a private matter that affects individuals"
Good faith is just as much about assuming good intent as it is about assuming genuineness. All of those statements are a far cry from “fuck everyone else.” The underlying intent could just as easily be “this can help more people.” It’s an unfair exaggeration that only serves to justify your indignation.
Program bloat is not due to poor compiler optimization. It’s due to runtime size and a lack of effort to make runtimes smaller. In particular the c runtime.
All of the performance wins you’re referencing come from vectorization, you typically can’t vectorize OS code since it isn’t ALU bound, which makes your point moot.
Let's assume the types have been corrected.
malloc((size_t)0) behavior is defined by the implementation; there are two choices: (a) always returns a null pointer; or (b) acts like malloc((size_t)1) which can allocate or fail, and if it allocates then the program shall not try to reference anything through the returned non-null pointer.
Now, memset itself is required (among other things) to be given as its first argument a valid pointer to a byte array. In particular, it shall not be a null pointer. Tracking through the conformance requirements, if the malloc call returns a null pointer then the behavior is undefined. Thus, you should not program like this.
The argument "0" is not automatically converted to the right type unless there is a prototype in scope. It isn't as important in this case because it is highly likely that the appropriate prototype has been #included, but it is a bigger deal if we're dealing with arguments for a variadic function. Anyway, it's good to be reminded what the declared types are.
Are you serious? Of course the question comes with the reasonable assumption that the proper declaration has been made especially since it’s a well known standard function. Additionally memset() is not a variadic function.
You said the types were corrected, you didn’t say you were reminding about the declaration types. The types were correct from the start.
That’s not true. Many people write code on Mac despite kernel extensions being disabled and SIP. What will be considered root will be a superficial emulation convincing enough to fool most Unix software
