loup-vaillant

8 ms·

1.
by loup-vaillant 9d ago
I love the self contradiction in this one.
2.
by loup-vaillant 11d ago
Then just outlaw big corps. Put a hard cap on company size or capital, possibly on a per-domain basis. Or just put what has to be big infrastructure under direct state control. Worked wonders in practice in France. Oh, and also put a hard
3.
by loup-vaillant 11d ago
If I recall correctly most software work goes to custom software. Note that in many, possibly most, cases, the (sole) customer retains the exclusive rights to the source code, making the software effectively Free per the FSF definition (be
4.
by loup-vaillant 11d ago
Or have a universal income. Capitalism isn't inevitable. And it will end anyway, at it hits planetary limits. Better start thinking of alternatives before one of the worst ones gets imposed on us.
5.
by loup-vaillant 12d ago
My fear exactly.
6.
by loup-vaillant 12d ago
> The German courts entirely disregarded our use of geo-IP lookups on queries, and asserted that since tests via a VPN were able to resolve the domain, we were in breach of court orders Seriously, what the fuck? So you're supposed
7.
by loup-vaillant 20d ago
Said democracy does have to be real, though. If we're talking about that country between two oceans that waged armed conflicts almost constantly since its very inception, has supported or helped put in place straight-up dictatorships n
8.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
It would, but then there’s another dilemma: in a country where there’s a limit to how far into pregnancy you can abort, that pill could easily be used over that limit, and then you have to question whether the increased availability is wort
9.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important? > I do not trust any state, gove
10.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> Pro-choice people "believe" that it isn't. Not all of us I would bet. One can believe the fetus is a human life, and still want to allow the mother ending it. Sure it’s rough, but this is a classic case of conflict
11.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
There are several aspects to this. One is control over women. Another is panic over the idea that other people with darker skin tone might overrun us with their reproductive might; either by mating like rabbits, or straight up stealing ou
12.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution. Indeed, access must be made easy. Abortion, through a pill or otherwise, should be accessible anywhere, freely, and any medical record should be kept absolutely secret,
13.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
I mean it needs to be made standard because of how bloody useful that is. More people need to be made aware (industry knowledge inertia), and it needs to be usable pretty much everywhere (ecosystem inertia). C and C++ start out so unsafe, I
14.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
You can kinda do this in C++ too with `std::vector::reserve()`. The thing is if my collection has no known bounds, well, maybe this time it requires 64GB of space? Except RAM is at a premium and I only have 16GB right now, and no swap spac
15.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
A fourth alternative, in 64-bit systems, is to reserve a stupidly large chunk of memory up front with `mmap()` or equivalent (`malloc()` actually should work about as well). That way you guarantee that any extension will happen in place.
16.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> malloc/free, not being a language feature, cannot be reasoned about. They’re defined in the standard all the same. Of course they can be reasoned with. The defined parts at least. You may argue that the undefined parts cannot
17.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> It can be reasoned about, but doing so correctly is very difficult […]. I don’t think this is controversial? It’s actually much easier than 95% of programmers think. The trick is to stop using fine grained allocations all the time,
18.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
Then it needs to be made standard. Without that, or an equivalent solution, garbage collected languages will remain unusable in constrained environments.
19.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
First, I’m not familiar with the Go ecosystem. I have never written a single line of Go, and I learned in this thread that there was more than one compiler. Second, please don’t accuse me of engaging in bad faith. I’m not. My question was g
20.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> In practice, if you were going use Go on a microcontroller you would not use the same compiler as you would use if you writing a web server. Is that a fact? Are you telling me that today , there's a Go compiler that's best
21.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
"Just don’t use it" is a valid argument, if it’s clear when you’re using it or not. It’s easy not to use `malloc()`: just don’t call it, and don’t call dependencies that call it. Same for Rust’s string: don’t construct strings,
22.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> Most software written today doesn't need to do manual memory management. Need? Not really, not on the desktop (embedded is a different story entirely). But there are still benefits, as well as costs. Thing is, most programmers h
23.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
Compatibility is a big one. Probably the biggest reason to chose C over Zig or Rust today. But that can be remedied if the new language has a C compilation target.
24.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> I'm sure _someone_ thinks manual memory management is a feature rather than a bug, I reckon mandatory manual memory management is not ideal. But the ability to manage some memory manually, including in cases that require som
25.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> * but if you have accepted the tradeoffs of using dynamic memory allocation then why not GC?* That’s the thing: many do not use dynamic allocation at all. Did you know for instance that you could write an entire modern cipher suite usi
26.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
You know, I’m actually tempted right now to do my own "C with <my-features>". Except I wouldn’t make the same choices as Stroustrup did. For one, I wouldn’t aim for popularity. I’d want something that works for me, and I’d c
27.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> As simple as that, not everyone of us is a Linus. I’m pretty sure Linus could not have written Linux today. Too much hardware to support, too many drivers to write, before it’s remotely useful. Well, except perhaps on some speciali
28.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> If so, why has it not been done? Because of the 30 million lines problem. Writing a serious OS kernel nowadays is flat out impossible: the hardware is just too diverse, it requires too many drivers. The best we can do right now is ju
29.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> A better C++ is by definition a better C The definition is wrong, then. I wrote C++ for most of my career. And as of late, I found myself avoiding more and more features from it. The STL is mostly trash, not worth the increase in co
30.
by loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> Go is a better C already It’s not. Garbage collection made sure of it. I believe everyone agrees that a "better C" has to have manual memory management. Most even rule out Go as a systems language because of GC. Of course,

More ›