There is no baby.

but Mozilla's lost too much funding over the years.

how the fuck can they not have enough money, they moved back to taking googles bribes 4 years ago, at last count it was 400m - 500m a year.

Yes, that was my point. The fact that it got to the point of fair use at all is a loss for something that was previously thought of completely uncopyrightable.

If The Lord of the Flies was an accurate depiction of reality, people would use a real incident as an example, rather than using a work of fiction.

In reality, when people are placed in survival situations, they cooperate, share, and help each other.

Also, IP addresses can be very easily spoofed. They're not considered reliable evidence in many computer crimes so investigators need to find proof on the computers themselves.

I share it with my kid and my brother (who uses it almost entirely to watch Star Trek). Do this and I'll go buy Star Trek DVDs and call it a day. Seriously NF, you don't have enough must watch content to get away with this. You need at least one break out hit to pull this crap.

UB is not forbidden. It has a definition in 3.4.3 (C17).

3.4.31undefined behavior

behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct or of erroneous data, for whichthis International Standard imposes no requirements

2Note 1 to entry:Possible 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 orwithout the issuance of a diagnostic message), to terminating a translation or execution (with the issuance of a diagnosticmessage).

Implementation defined also has a definition in 3.4.1

But you are excused: obviously thee standard text did not have enough paragraphs for you to be able to read it.

Unfortunately, you cannot blame the compiler writers nor can you blame the programmers themselves - the ANSI committee is filled with morons who have no intention of making the language spec less ambiguous. After their last standard they were dumbfounded to learn that the changes they made to the C99 standard turned memcpy into undefined-behaviour.

Some compiler writers promoted the idea that "undefined behavior" is illegal for a programmer to use and can be exploited for compilers for optimization, e.g. even a little bit of UB behavior allows a compiler to completely break your program. Now, strictly speaking the later is true from the point of the standard (as it is undefined behavior compilers can do what the want) and also partially intended. But if a compiler then does not let you do what you want anymore you simply have a compiler which sucks (or is not the right one for you).

In other words, undefined behavior is expected to be filled in by reasonable semantics of the platform you are working with.

And btw. I am committee member (and GCC contributor).

There are 4 functions (getenv, localeconv, setlocale, strerror) in the standard library that return a pointer and state that the return value points to something that "shall not be modified by the program". The correct way to state this would be to make the return value pointer-to-const. This would communicate the intent more clearly even to users, and make it easier for implementations to diagnose bugs.

I don't know about other languages but I'm giving an argument anyway: The cool part about typescript is you can do progressive conversion. If you have a huge codebase, you can just pick 1 type, setup a class with methods and go on, the rest will work as is.

I think you are bit confused about the nature of undefined behavior (as are some of your sources - random blogs on the internet

are sometimes not the ideal source). The C standard (and this was always the case) specifies certain things and does not specify certain other things (leaves it undefined). This is the reason why C is very portable while still being extremely light weight (does not need a costly abstraction layer). Some compiler writers promoted the idea that "undefined behavior" is illegal for a programmer to use and can be exploited for compilers for optimization, e.g. even a little bit of UB behavior allows a compiler to completely break your program. Now, strictly speaking the later is true from the point of the standard (as it is undefined behavior compilers can do what the want) and also partially intended.

But if a compiler then does not let you do what you want anymore you simply have a compiler which sucks (or is not the right one for you). In other words, undefined behavior is expected to be filled in by reasonable semantics of the platform you are working with.

It was always the case in C that many programs may rely on aspects of your specific computer which are undefined by the C standard and are not perfectly portable. This is explicitly spelled out in the standard.

Undefined behavior could be used for optimization (many people asked for this), it could also be used for additional run-time checks (e.g. bounds checking), or just filled with native behavior of the architecture you are working on (e.g. signed overflow could just do what your processor does instead of getting miscompiled). One can complain that the C standard leaves stuff undefined and in that way puts some responsibility into the hands of compiler writers.

But what I am seeing here is that compilers then did really stupid things and then shifted the blame to the standards committee, i.e "yes, we broke the programs of our users in really stupid ways but the committee did not explicitly forbid this so it is their fault".

(of course sensible compilers never tried to break your program). A lot of the nonsense you see on the internet comes exactly from this angle.

There is also another common misunderstanding about the nature of standards committees. The committee task is to standardize the language, but does not develop it. If you want to see something it needs to be implemented in some compilers. You can then go to the committee and ask that this gets into the standard and if there is consensus, there is a change that this happens. So if somebody wants a "friendly dialect of C" he should promote it, and get it implemented. We could then standardize it.

Now, having explained all this:

While it is entirely true that some fields are worse than others (I believe cancer research is supposed to be incredibly bad, but this is me trying to remember from a decade ago now), analyses of all scientific fields finds problems in all of them.

And if one of those 9/10 sites is Slashdot, what site would replace it in your rounds?

The price of things you buy will go up.

It's clear that (and I hate this term) what Big Tech is scared of here is companies spending less money on ads.

What makes you think *they* are the ones paying tax? Do you think when an entire industry gets a price hike they just say "oh well we had a good run I think we'll just have to eat our profits a bit".

Expect the tax to reflect a proportionate increase in revenue for the companies involved.

Scientists are paragons of objectivity. They would never cheat in order to further a political agenda.