If a statement is a joke is not defined whether someone finds it is funny or not, but by its intention. We don't all laught at the same jokes do we? In this case, we don't know the intention behind it, or at least our two comments didn't reveal it.
(It is so sad to see preconditioned impulsive disagreement, just because certain words are discussed from a neutral perspective)
He doesn't seem to be serious, but I don't think one could really call the domain a "joke". It's using a word who's sole connotation is as a racial slur.
And i don't see why there shouldn't be impulsive disagreement, considering how terrible the word is.
So what do you do when an index into an array is out of bounds at run-time. You can't perform a check every time because that would go against the C's principle, and at the same time it would degrade performance, making it less useful compared to newer languages.
How would you implement defined behavior without a significant (which is what an if check is at that level) overhead in this case?
> So what do you do when an index into an array is out of bounds at run-time. You can't perform a check every time because that would go against the C's principle, and at the same time it would degrade performance, making it less useful compared to newer languages.
Bounds checks are not really a problem if you get rid of for loops in favor of constructions that eliminate bounds checks by construction (e.g. iterators). Of course, they're still problems in languages that continue the tradition of C-style for loops.
This is a classic example of how just defining away undefined behavior can make C unacceptably slow, but does not necessarily make other languages unacceptably slow.
Compared to the economic cost of bugs, bound checks everywhere are (very very) cheap. Even more so with the CPU and compilers we have today, which are more than sufficiently smart from the point of view of when C was created. Intel is even adding some new instructions in their CPU to make that even less costly than you could imagine in even some crazy C based situation you would not think to be possible in the first place, because of C. But the cost here is extra complexity, for something that should have been built-in in the first place.
More technically to address fears of slowdowns even with simpler architectures, the additional checks will likely be factored most of the time (for example before a loop with linear accesses). When they are not, to have a real impact 1/ it has to be in a really hot code path (like 1% or maybe even 0.1% or even less of a real system) 2/ the cpu should not be able to use empty OOO slots and execution units to execute it without any extra penality 3/ this is quite a deduction from the two preceding points, but if we are talking about a big array being accessed in random order this will be slow because of RAM access anyway, an extra check won't induce any meaningful slowdown maybe even if it were mispredicted (which it will not be - in regard to performance).
Like always if you have any performance issue, first profile. And actually I can't remember having ever heard a single person complaining that some bound checking in a program was the cause of their slowdowns. It often far more macroscopic, and easy to fix anyway when it is that much micro. Considering usual modern systems, they are sometimes so slow that the problem is certainly NOT native bound checking, but very probably architectural madness.
If you were frequently catching out of bounds accesses your CPU's branch predictor would be making mistakes and you'd be frequently eating the branch mispredict penalty. Any extra instruction or check that alters the control flow is often much more expensive than just another addition. However, in this case if you're taking the branch something is seriously broken so that you should not be facing this. Pre-Haswell Intel CPUs only had one branch slot so you still might have a penalty but as you say this isn't the end of the world.
One intelligent mind in the combine that is BuzzFeed, doesn't account for the horde of mindless drones who write a huge majority of click-bait material.
I don't see where do you see the support for the idea that their goal is quality articles.
I agree, minus the ride-sharing part, which will have a very minor share, in numbers compared to taxis and similar. Car is still a necessity in the eyes of an average (first world) human and our individuality will not let us share them.
> Car is still a necessity in the eyes of an average (first world) human and our individuality will not let us share them.
Individuality and fear of foreigners sure is a strong force. However so is saving money. There is a reason some people still take the bus, even when they could have taken a taxi.
The request was invalid from the start and OP probably knows it.
FOIA is not used to obtain information contained in the seized material, but information that arose during the investigation. If for some reason, the information created in the investigation contained the actual recording from the album, then you could at least theoretically ask for that information. If not, then there was no information to ask for in the first place.
What can I ask for under the FOIA?
A FOIA request can be made for any agency record. You can also specify the format in which you wish to receive the records (for example, printed or electronic form). The FOIA does not require agencies to create new records or to conduct research, analyze data, or answer questions when responding to requests.
Too crazy. I can't believe any public person, would say anything like that on record. I wouldn't be surprised if the article was revealed to be fake, but apparently he approved it [0]. So, either the article is real, or this [1] twitter account isn't his, which doesn't seem likely.
This must be a case of damage control [2] going haywire.
Given that the complete audio of the interview is available on youtube, it's 100% without question genuine.
(Ah, they took the interview audio down, apparently. I listened to the complete phone interview, and I can vouch for the transcript being accurate, for what it's worth)
I think this is what happens when you believe your own bullshit too hard and for too long. It's one thing to go around acting like you're God's gift to humanity, but if you start actually believing it, large unpleasant men with guns will come and explain how you've got it wrong.
Or they'll believe it too and rally around you. There's being high on your own bullshit, and getting others high on your fantastical bullshit. He wouldn't have got as far as he has if he hasn't at least some knack for the latter.
I suppose the trick is to stay ahead of the wake of your reality distortion field, and being able to maintain such.
