stkdump

I might be misunderstanding it, but microg is not (like the name suggests) a stripped down version of the google services. It is a reimplementation of the APIs that the google services provide to installed apps. It doesn't reuse any code (it couldn't, because the google services are not open source) and doesn't connect to google servers, afaik.

That looks like a copy of the list of supported devices of lineage. I highly doubt that the e foundation can test their installer on so many devices. They (or their own developer community) would need to get access to these devices at least. I guess the only way to broaden support for the installer a lot would be to work on upstreaming it to the lineage project so that the broader community does the work for them.

Does it support incremental builds? How does it detect include dependencies? Is it portable?

> The task bar, the Start menu, the system tray, "My Computer", "Network Neighbourhood"

Literally not a single one of these existed in Windows 3.0.

Gnunet is >20 years old. Will it be ready before hurd?

I don't know, for me Meckes is neutral. The ones with more negative connotations are probably 'Zum Goldenen Adler' (due to the sarcastic undertone) und 'Amerikanische Delikatessen' (due to the perceived oxymoron)

It is also common in Europe, or at least Germany, though more likely spelled Meckes. The term apparently used in the US (Mickey Ds) is unheard of here. There seems to be a trend in the US to dissociate from everything that sounds like it could have European history or influence (see also the renaming of french fries)

The problem with the preprocessor often is that it is a language inside another language and the preprocessor is designed to be almost completely agnostic of the language it is embedded in. So there might be subtle ways to use the preprocessor so that implementing as-if becomes very unintuitive. I don't have a good intuition about this case, if this is 100% designed in a way that it can never provoke such subtle side-effects. Basically what might end up happening is that the preprocessor has to learn some part of the C language to decide if such an as-if transformation is possible and then branch to either do it or don't.

According to your link, Windows has 3 times the market share of OS X. In Germany it is closer to 4 times.

Right. I think most Chromebooks do, but this one seems to be the exception.

Wouldn't be a huge problem for me. If I am merely operating a device, then the touchscreen is good enough. For serious work, I use external peripherals anyway.

And nowadays Newtonian mechanics are disproven and we still apply it broadly, because it's still useful. It just doesn't paint the full picture. Same for the geocentric world view. We all know that the earth isn't the center of the solar system, but we still measure days, years, seasons, etc. as if it were. Why? Because for most uses, it is the simpler and more helpful model.

I think something similar could happen here. We come up with a more accurate model that requires fewer exceptions, but is harder to apply/work with day-to-day.

I dunno, people here report having problems with iPhones pairing to their cars. I never had a problem with Android phones pairing with my car. Or with my soundcores. As matter of fact, it works so much better, that even though my phone still has a 3.5mm, never thought I would have to use it and would be quite ok if my next phone came without. Back before I had my first soundcores I would always be annoyed with the cord rubbing against my cloths whenever I move, creating noise. And not having to deal with the cord when I put them on/off, etc. It is such a quality of live improvement, easily one of the biggest improvements in recent years.

In a large enough group the body weight differences easily outweigh (heh) the bike weight differences. And of course the fitness differences are a whole other story.

For any half fit cyclist, the 25kmh ebike limit is the minimum speed. That is the speed you go uphill. Downhill and flats, you can go a lot faster, because you didn't spend your energy accelerating to 25.

> And it's worth noting that addition of pointers is only really a trivial op in non-segmented architectures without any kind of pointer tagging anyways. The window on that assumption opened with 32bit archs and will probably close soon as CPU security primitives evolve.

It was trivial on char* in the 16 bit segmented days (artihmetic was only applied to the offset part of the pointer, if you had a far pointer at all), unless you absolutely needed the huge memory model, which was discouraged anyway because of its slowness. What it did mean though, was that code and data lived in something akin to separate address spaces. But portable modern C code usually doesn't use performance tricks like self-modifying code anymore anyway, because even if it wasn't problematic it wouldn't really be needed anymore.

I don't do embedded (anymore), so please consider that your use-case and concern is very specific.

But even in C++ you can't redefine what + means for types, where it already has a builtin meaning. The only thing you can do is define what it does for custom types. That means when you see the + operator applied to some class or struct type, you should already be aware that this is nothing built-in and equivalent to a function call. If you are not, you are just not fluent in your tooling. That is completely different problem. It is something learnable, not a fundamental problem of the tooling.

I never said, that it is impossible to work without operator overloading (actually the opposite). Just that it is a very common feature in most programming languages, and I don't understand why an experienced developer would be confused by it. Even in maths expressions (where the operators come from), you have this behavior. If you multiply two matrices, it does something completely different. The result could be huge and thus in computing world require huge memory allocation. Also you can multiply matrices, but you can't divide them. The primary school level math you seem to be limiting the world to is not practical.

See, framing it as a personal preference makes much more sense. Of course disallowing nontrivial work in operators will also mean you can't concatenate strings in them, so you will have few languages to choose from.

You can predict the outcome very well. It is a call to an operator, which can be trivial for simple types. But of course if you concatenate two 500MB strings using +, you will have a 1GB allocation. I don't see how that is a problem or even a surprise. Of course you could do something in that operator that nobody would expect to happen inside it. But the same is true if you give a function a bad name. For all intents and purposes, an operator is just a function with a particularly short name and (default) style of how it is called.

> You read 'a=b+c' and you literally have no clue what that means.

I never understood that argument. Even in C operators do different things depending on what types you pass it. Two very simple examples:

1. Adding a number to a char* vs adding a number to an int* (or a pointer to any other larger type). The second automatically creates an invisible multiplication. This was confusing for me when I first learned C after already knowing the concept of a memory address (which is just a number). It was an unexpected abstraction for me.

2. This regularly bites novices to programming: Dividing two numbers. If at least one of them is floating point, you get the 'correct' result, overwise rounded towards zero. To 'fix' it, you have to explicitly cast at least one of them to float or double. Then the language imlpicitly casts the other for you. std::pow went the other way, which is less confusing. It always promotes integers to floating point numbers and returns a floating point result.

As soon as your language has types and operators, you get operators that do different things based on the types of the values they are applied to. The only new thing that operator overloading adds is that it makes libraries first class citizens.

I don't think that is really the case here. It is more greenwashing of the intentional effect to subsidise expensive cars.

So you are on sick leave without letting your boss know. I guess that works, but it puts the 'bimodal' comment in a different light.

I envy you.

If you want to do something meaningful you have to pay for it in lost income. The same is true for any other kind of work. I don't see why engineering should be any different. But even the tier 1 jobs mentioned here pay enough for an average lifestyle + some buffer. So if you don't care for a luxurious lifestyle, you can devote a lot of time or money to what you care for.

So what if you are sick? You are using your normal vacation days?

I find it fascinating how triggered people get, when they hear people making a personal choice out of conviction. Almost as if they are being attacked on their own choices, which they are not.

> a Chinese junk was able to reach the moon

Especially considering the enormous size of chinese junks!

Isn't a do expression the same + ability for the block to return a value? So what if you don't need to return a value?

The question is if miners pull out at all. In theory there are two important price points: the one where building up a new facility with initial investments is profitable and another price point where keeping an existing facility running is profitable.