> Instantaneous access to everything obviously comes at a cost. The cost being that we all behave like demented Roman emperors, at once bored and deranged, summoning whatever we want at any time.
> All over the world, an entire generation of young men, often referred to as “NEETs,” are robbing themselves of agency, drive, and romantic relationships through their addiction to video games and pornography. Video games allow a young man to experience a sort of pseudo-achievement, while pornography masquerades as love. Some of these men have seen more naked women than any king who has ever lived.
> Many will mock their pain and their addiction, but it’s heartbreaking to think that they’ll never experience true risk, true reward, or true romance.
This post acknowledges that NEETs are living better than ancient Roman emperors, but laments they're missing out on "risk, reward, and romance" that these ancient Romans had. What exactly is so great about risking death on the battlefield or risking food poisoning at a bad restaurant? Why would an average man in his early 20s want to take a risk by approaching women at one's job or in public? Especially when you go on Tinder/Hinge and realize just how worthless you actually are.
The article argues that:
> Thoroughly exhausting ourselves intellectually and physically through productive work brings fulfillment, and with fulfillment comes peace.
But you can, as the article acknowledges, thoroughly exhaust yourself through video games and online vices. Achievement no longer requires risk. And the article is unable to quantify what value that risk brings beyond being inherently exciting. If this was true, why aren't more people taking risks? It should be more fun than sitting at home all day.
"NEET" is an economic term that stands for "not in education, employment, or training", because unemployment doesn't include people that have left the labour force entirely. Self-description as a NEET is a proud admission that one does not contribute to the economy or work force; it's a valuation of the individual over the community.
This article accepts that premise and argues in futility that NEETs don't really want the lifestyle they chose. I disagree, and I'd rather we make it an explicit value of our society to reject individual freedoms that cause broader social harms.
If smartphone addiction is legitimately destroying society by acting as a sinkhole for human potential, we should apply legal restrictions or taxes on screen time. That would be more effective than telling someone who's doomscrolling how they're actually hurting themselves.
You have to provide your email to sign up for HN, however, it is not publicly visible. If YCombinator had to pay $10,000 for leaking a user email, this site isn't going to exist since it's not their core business and represents a huge liability.
It's also disproportionate. If my email is leaked in the context of receiving treatment for a stigmatized disease, that's a lot worse than an MMORPG leaking my real name.
Maybe some penalty is necessary but $10k or above per user is disproportionate for the vast majority of people. A $50/person penalty with gradations for sensitivity of the information is going to work better in practice. If leaking an SSN is more expensive than an email or site-specific ID, corporations might stop using SSNs to identify people to reduce their exposure
Have the C-suite hand back their compensation above minimum wage for the last 3 years. Fine the company, all profits, or a percentage of global revenue (and pay that back to customers).
If the outcome of ignoring data security is to not make any money then companies will actually do something about it.
Penalities should push the company to the point of failing.
This isn't true. int[] decays into an int* but is a different type.
An array member of a struct will have its data allocated contiguously with other struct members (subject to compiler padding). An int* would point outside the struct. This is possible even with variable length arrays. Specifically, you can declare the final member of a struct as an int[] which makes it a "flexible array member". Then you have to malloc the struct to be the sizeof the struct + whatever size you want the array to be.
This is rather pedantic but the memory model for arrays is important here. If you're iterating over multiple struct members that are arrays, the fact the arrays are stored contiguously in memory is going to matter to SIMD.
>Then you have to malloc the struct to be the sizeof the struct + whatever size you want the array to be.
Ultra pedantic, but you actually do not need to alloc struct+size; you want something like:
// A flexible array member may have lower alignment requirements than the struct
// overall - in that case, it can overlap with the trailing padding of the rest
// of the struct, and a naive sizeof(base) + sizeof(flex) * count calculation
// will not take into account that overlap, and allocate more than is required.
#define SIZEOF_FLEX(type, member, count) MAX(sizeof(type), offsetof(type, member[count]))
I'm sure there's a more elegant way to calculate this, but I am no macro master.
if using an int* over an int[] changes the memory layout of a struct, that necessarily implies a difference in the ABI.
As an example, C++'s std::array can be implemented as a struct containing a fixed-size C-style array. This can be passed-by-value. This means that returning a std::array can be more performant than returning a std::vector (which might be implemented as an int* that is reallocated when you add too many elements), because a std::array is returned on the stack while a std::vector is returned on the heap.
I was bit by this once when returning a std::unordered_map because I was doing a heap-allocation in a performance-critical section.
From this article by a German lawyer, "the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.":
> Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG provides four criteria that have to be taken into account in the selection decision: Length of service, age, statutory maintenance obligations and the employee's severe disability.
> The employer must first determine which employees work at the same level in the company and can therefore be replaced. The group of employees determined in this way is what is known as a horizontal comparability. Social selection is then carried out in this group on the basis of the legally prescribed criteria. The members of the respective group are then ranked according to their need for social protection.
> Older employees are more in need of protection than younger ones. A longer period of employment also increases the need for protection, as does the existence of statutory maintenance obligations and the presence of a severe disability.
> Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG does not indicate how the social aspects mentioned are to be put in relation to each other, which is why each of the four criteria is to be given equal importance.
> When reducing staff, employers often make use of point schemes through which points are assigned to the individual social criteria. It also gives information through which the need for social protection of the employees in the comparison group can be assessed.
> All employees who are interchangeable must be included in the social selection. Criteria that can be used in this examination are the vocational training as well as the practical experience and knowledge that the respective employees have. If there is comparability, these workers are horizontally interchangeable. In practice, the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.
It seems pretty obvious to me that this makes it much harder for people with severe disabilities to get hired in the first place, especially for progressive degenerative diseases.
If I'm a company that is expanding at the edge of my capability, I'm not going to hire anyone with any "need for protection" that I'm able to suss out during the application or interview process because if I need to reduce staff I'm stuck with them whether they're the best or not.
It's not inherently fraudulent to sell something for below market value.
If I sell something I bought for $1 million for $1 in an arm's length transaction, I'm realizing a loss of $999,999 even if the asset was worth $500,000. And it'd be a rational decision if it cost me $5 million in opportunity costs to do that $500k sale.
That's not how US capital gains tax law works. It's legal to sell something at below market value, but you have to use the fair market value when calculating a loss for tax purposes. Of course some people cheat.
> When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the adjusted basis in the asset and the amount you realized from the sale is a capital gain or a capital loss.
Isn't this how dynamic linking works? If you really want to reduce build times, you should be making your hot path in the build a shared library, so you don't have to relink so long as you're not changing the interface.
Rust is perfectly happy to emit/use dynamic links.[0] It's just that the primary C use case (distributing and updating the main app and its libraries separately) ends up being unsafe since Rust's ABI is unstable (so compiler versions, libraries, etc must match exactly).
Avoiding static relinking during development is pretty much the use where it does work. In fact, Bevy recommends this as part of its setup guide![1]
Practice paints a slightly less rosy picture, though; since the feature is exercised quite rarely, not all libraries work well with it in practice.[2]
I would take synchronized posts with a grain of salt. There are many groups that try to influence reddit politically. One significant strategy involves acquiring control over hobby subreddits to create the illusion of "non-political" people making a decision.
If you want to extend the analogy, Gus Fring's threat model for RFP contractors at the superlab required flying people into the United States and driving them for days before reaching the final destination. i.e. If you aren't selected for the final proposal, the most you should know is the lab is "somewhere reachable by driving from the United States".
Locating the superlab to within 800 miles would break Gus' threat model.
Combined with the information the police have, which is that a new form of "blue meth" is spreading across the American southwest, a reasonable conclusion would be that the "underground superlab" is where the meth is being manufactured. It's independent corrobation of a major manufacturing operation occurring in the United States in the exact region where a new drug is taking off.
This is useful, since it helps rule out the meth being smuggled in from Mexico. It also makes the lab a high priority target, because a DEA agent investigating doesn't need to liaise with a foreign government, and you can secure a domestic prosecution + American prison time instead of attempting to extradite the cooks.
It also allows me to send a detailed memo about the superlab to ASAC Schrader's office in Albuquerque telling him about a threat in his jurisdiction, rather than circulating a brief summary about this superlab in the weekly intelligence briefing sent to all high-ranking DEA officials they probably don't read.
> stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face, and you'll stay plastered
--William F. Buckley Jr to Gore Vidal in 1968 on ABC television
Buckley also hosted a show on PBS at the time.
reply