396 karma · joined July 28, 2014
C is specific in that it tries to give a good direct interface with hardware. If working within other software like an OS, it's tedious, as there's a lot of things outside of C itself to take into account. Again, not a downside of a language, but the way it is used.
Javascript has no relation whatsoever to C, in its design nor implementation. it's a scripting language :/.
C is far superior than a lot of languages, but it's often badly applied giving it a bad name. It has a more limited scope in todays world of rapid development on top of operating systems. For embedded / bare metal systems it rules the day and there's barely an alternative unless the bare metal provides excessive resources to allow for things like c++ or rust which add a lot of overhead to systems to provide more ease of use. (i.e. not always worth it / possible depending on the system its targeting.)
assembly would be a good alternative to C, but it's incredibly more tedious, where C is a good high level repalcement for assembly, which is what it was designed to be.
C is great, just don't use it if you don't need to use it.
the issue is not with the technology, but with people, as always. with the adoption of ipv6, iot and gps_in_everything etc. it's not a question about if the technology can be used for bad things, it's a question about if it will.
people who only believe int he darker side of this technology can easily avoid it by not participating. they should let people who willingly participate do so at their own 'peril' if that's their opinion.
privacy advocates are the new religion trying to push their views on everyone even though it's just a matter of opinion. some people love to be tracked everywhere for the benefits it can give them, other people hate it for the downsides it might have. its all a matter of opinion for users, and a question of integrity for its masters.
most excuses people give for going serverless is just handing off responsibilities to cloud providers to be able to point and blame if the shit hits the fan.
if they found at the end it was a mistake to give out such tickets, that's their problem ,not the end user's problem.
in light of fraud of the user, for example giving the lifelong pass to use by other individuals (obviously not the intended purpose of the thing) i could expect it to be withdrawn. but that would only apply if these limitations were clearly stated or noted on the purchase.
I wholeheartedly agree on your point though, that if i reject 'A' on one site, it could be assumed by the browser i'd like to reject 'A' on the next site. Perhaps the same kind of block could occur like they do with faulty ssl settings, just stating that you blocked 'A' on some site ,and this site is using the same, with a button to proceed if you accept that fact.
these kinds of things can't be made concrete, and thus i'd say it's a waste of time and effort to pursue such thoughts, just as it's a waste of time and effort to pursue other views, like speculating about less tin foil hattish circumstances of his death.
the medical report is clear up to a point it can be. anything after that is just speculation unless direct concrete evidence can be provided.
that means, that this post isn't anymore far fetched than people speculating about less conspiracy based items. it's all a bunch of guesses, and there won't be a final answer unless someone pulls some proof out of their hat.
it's better to spend time on things which do have an answer instead of speculating on past events.
may the dude rest in peace and let that be the end of it.