bitofhope

Never ever board a ship if someone calls her unsinkable.

The point is not to be a gender detector. The point is to be a vague heuristic to discriminate by. It's like ad network tracking. They really don't know me as well as they think they do and pretend they do, but if they can convince themselves and their customers, it's enough. If computer gets your gender wrong, well nobody's perfect and it's a sacrifice they're willing to let you make. If the computer gets your gender wrong because you're queer, gender nonconforming or a person of colour, all the better — that's what the customers want anyway.

Now to be fair, C really is quite close to what the machine is really like, if by C you mean B and by machine you mean PDP-7.

It's also highly portable in the sense that all twenty or thirty well-formed, standard-compliant and nontrivial C programs ever written can be compiled to a mind-bogglingly huge variety of hardware and OS targets and even work correctly on some of them.

Electric Wizard 🤝Donald Trump
"Legalize Drugs & Murder"

You (group A) think C is simple, that it can be thought of as portable assembly, that it teaches you how computers actually work, and that it's easy to avoid memory safety errors with good programming discipline, and is therefore fine.

You (group B) think C is deceptively complex, is far removed from current-day real world hardware semantics, abstracts memory in an outdated and overly simplified manner, and that it's very hard for even professionals to write programs that are correct to the extent of equivalent programs in memory safe languages, therefore C shouldn't be use for new software development.

I think C is deceptively complex, is far removed from current-day real world hardware semantics, abstracts memory in an outdated and overly simplified manner, and that it's very hard for even professionals to write programs that are correct to the extent of equivalent programs in memory safe languages, which are some of the features that make C so fun and exciting. Like rawdogging a one night stand!

We are not the same.

—What kind of gambling do you usually have here?
—Oh, we got both kinds. We got day trading and betting.

Grift tech that claims to do awful shit that ruins everyone's lives, but really just makes Stanford grads sit around pretending to invent something while funneling VC money directly in their bloodstreams.

You'd think these would overflow the evil scale and end up back into being ethical but really they're just doing the same thing as the non-vaporware evil companies with just some extra steps.

Thanks, Google. You know, I used to be pretty good at getting consistent, useful results from your search engine, but the improvements you've made to it since the make me feel like I really might need a fucking prompt engineering course to find things on the internet these days. By which I mean something that'll help you promptly engineer the internet back into a form where search engines work correctly.

What the hell do people think they're adding to the conversation with quips like this? We were talking about how social media personalities should be better role models. Should parents be good role models? Yes, but that's only relevant to the discussion, if you mean to imply it's not a problem that social media entertainers are bad ones, and that parents being good ones just solves any issues.

RATIONAL/LOGICAL
You: 80 (superior tactics)
Her: 15 (emotional, reactive)

EMOTIONAL REGULATION
You: 70 (cold, intermittent bursts of anger)
Her: 10 (in the middle of a panic attack)

VICTIM MENTALITY
You: 0 (the exact opposite of a victim and knows it)
Her: 85 (default mode of victimhood)

CONFLICT HANDLING
You: 100 (extremely direct)
Her: 30 (focusses on past, but quick to refocuss priorities)

HIT POINTS
You: 100 (full health)
Her: 15 (bleeding out from a gunshot wound, about to pass out)

critical support

ffs it's in public domain just use a still from the staircase silhouette like everyone else