pqomdv's comments

I remember playing this years ago and couldn't progress past the last few levels. Is there a cheat to skip levels or unlock them, I don't want to replay everything?

Nevermind... I just finished it.

The colors always bugged me, why does the color sometimes become black when I'm traveling towards it when it should become brighter? Perhaps because the game only simulates the frequency and we can only see a narrow spectra so it makes sense it is black on both ends.

Also the closing doors don't seem to work properly, or it is just my perception.

Which definition is that?

You probably though of:

  array  == &array[0]

which is always true.

This:

  (void*)&array   == (void*)&array[0]

which simplifies to:

    (void*)&array   == (void*)array

is not.

C doesn't guarantee that the values of &array and array are the same. The types T( * )[ * ] and T* are not even compatible and those two pointers are allowed to have different sizes and representation.

So you only have to visit a website and do nothing else? And probably assuming javascript is enabled.

The difference is small if you take the whole trip into account. Assuming one stop, over 6 hours of total trip time, the difference become less than 5%.

I wonder how much a 10 minute stop charges a Tesla S. Probably a third. Once the superchargers become common enough, you can do several shorter stops instead.

Can you elaborate?

I can't wait for junkyard micro-satellites equipped with an ion thruster. They are launched in the hundreds at a time, each locates their specific target, attaches and start a slow descend to burn in the atmosphere. This process is done automatically over a time-frame of months, since ion thrusters work slowly, which is great for automation.

U.S. House Armed Services Committee Hearings - Assuring Assured Access to Space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ff_5jF_3QU&feature=youtu.be...

This isn't the talk by Gwynne mentioned in the article, however it is a government hearing that happened on the same day by the same person.

( Gotta love the title: AAA - Assuring Assured Access... )

This only works assuming you can't hack the game itself, publicize the solution, or pay someone to do it for you.

3.5$ per user(!, or should I say a fan ) is significantly more than just negligible compared with fractions of a cent for every user.

It is also more correct, your subscription is distributed to artists whose music you actually listened to. It repeat listens are accounted for, then it would be even more fair, since you usually listen more to your favorite artists.

Currently the distribution just isn't correct. This is probably because of technical reasons.

Ebbv might be referring to problems with orbital precession, which was explained completely by general relativity.

char* * argv is NULL terminated, my mistake I though you were referring to that type in general.

What about password website leaks? Surely that is not my fault.

Technically that is also the human element but I think you are talking specifically about users.

They claim physical access for "hacking" is required, but that is not true. As long as you have a root access on a device you can do anything from anywhere. I don't see how this replaces or improves passwords from this perspective. Yes it is easier for the user, since they don't have to remember the password, but everything else stays the same.

We are talking about C and not a specific compiler, so there are a lot of mistakes in your comment.

char * * is a pointer to a pointer to a char and nothing else, it might be a NULL terminated array or not at all.

C cares about types. Casting a pointer to an incompatible type or reinterpreting through an incompatible pointer is not defined in C( undefined behavior ).

Pointers of different types are allowed to have different sizes. sizeof( char* ) == sizeof( char* * ) is not guaranteed in C.

Also any program whose main is not int main( void ) or int main( int , char* * ) will result in undefined behavior.

All of this is in the latest standard.

Both, segfaulting or running completely normally can be a result of undefined behavior. That is why we really like to avoid it in C. Thus your advice is really not good for a modern C.

Solving problems that don't exists is rational? Human progress would be severely diminished by such actions.

The global warming comparison isn't very good. We had the capabilities for carbon output 50 years ago and it has slowly been increasing. But we don't yet have an AI. So there is no need to warn anyone, except out of irrational fear. Once we actually get it, it would make sense to start warning about its applications, so it doesn't get out of control.

If I apply your analogy correctly, then warning about AI now, is the same as it would be warning about global warming in the 19th century. Not very logical and certainly very paranoid.