other techbros have praised him, citing the exact list of symptoms google gives for “high-functioning psychopath”

(disclaimer: google may give bad medical advice)

I wonder if it’s common for those steganography techniques to have some mechanism for defeating the fairly simple strategy of getting 2 copies of the file from different sources, and looking at the differences between them to expose all the watermarks.

(I’d think you would need sections of watermark that are the same for any 2 or n combinations of copies of the data, which may be pretty easy to do in many cases, though the difference makes detecting the general watermarking strategy massively easier for the un-watermarkers)

you can often just slap compiler cache on a project and get a 20-150x speedup, but when the original compile time was 45 minutes, it’s still slow enough to disrupt your workflow (though, I suspect you may be talking about some manual method that may be even faster. But are those really common enough where you would call the lack of it a code smell?)

C++ is std::__cxx11::list<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0>, std::allocator<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0> > >::erase(std::_List_const_iterator<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0> >) /usr/include/c++/12/bits/list.tcc:158

your underflow error is someone’s underflow feature (hopefully with -fwrapv)

how did I miss that…

also a fun fact, while commercial aviation is very safe, private planes are much more dangerous, being almost as dangerous per mile as a regular car (and you get a lot more miles per hour of travel)

This description could be anyone.

CIA assassination is the leading cause of death worldwide

that works for 2 word names eg is_open or is_file, but in this case is_dialog_file_open is structured like a question, while dialog_file_is_open is structured like a statement

like everything in python, to achieve functional you must first import functional

(not even a joke)

for a large project, you can probably look at the history of issues, if there are lots of issues that are 5 years old, it’s almost certainly legit

All 9k stars, 10k PRs, 400 forks & professional web site are fake?

Technically, it is entirely possible to find a real existing project, make a carbon copy of the website (there are automated tools to accomplish this), then have a massive amount of bots give 9K stars and make a lot of PRs, issues and forks (bonus points if these are also copies of actual existing issues/PRs) and generate a fake commit history (this should be entirely possible with git), a bunch of releases could be quickly generated too. Though you would probably be able to notice pretty quickly that timestamps don’t match since I don’t think github features like issues can have fake timestamps (unlike git)

though I don’t think this has ever actually been done, there are services that claim to sell not only stars but issues, pull requests and forks too. Though assuming the service is not just a scam in itself, any cursory look at the contents of the issues etc would probably give away that they are AI generated

as many iterations as it takes

void* x = &x;
char* ptr = (char*)&x;

while (1) {
    printf("%d\n", (unsigned int)*ptr);
    ptr--;
}

looks like work on the android client started in 2011 (or at least, that’s when it seemingly started using version control)

the app was released in 2014

so it has likely inherited decisions from ~14 years ago, I’d guess there is a several year gap where having a native desktop app was not even a concern

Also the smartphone landscape was totally different back then, QT’s android support back then was in alpha (or totally nonexistent if the signal project is a bit older than the github repository makes it seem), and the average smartphone had extremely weak processing power and a tiny screen resolution by today’s standards. Making the same gui function on both desktop and mobile was probably a pretty ridiculous proposition.

that’s based entirely on 4chan’s advertising demographic claims which I’m not sure if they should be given much credence given there is no information at all about how it was determined.

Also the statistic is at least 10 years old without being updated, and could even be much older

monospace means the width of the “whole” character is always the same, but the width of the visible part of the character is not (imagine how large the dot would have to be for that to work)

...mm.m.

are you a goldfish.

When you meet a bear in the woods, there is a 0% chance they will notice how the situation bears a resemblance to the popular meme and proceed to mansplain about how bears are more dangerous.

This is and has always been the one and only reason women choose the bear. But one question yet eludes us: how did the cycle start?

or that I don’t want to (google what it is and then) press some weird keybind and spend minutes scrolling through the list of emojis when good ol’ emoticons do the trick

floats