Foresight FTW.

In the end we inplemented NoTaD pointers (“notified on target destruction”, essentially weak pointers but this was back in the day when weak pointers and smart pointers weren’t really well defined) that would discover when the thing they took a precious pointer to was actually no longer valid.

It’s weird to me that programming practice has changed that much in 20 years. That’s still closer to today than to Dennis Richie doing his thing.

Hmm, guy who wrote his own kernel because he didn’t like the ones that existed. I’m sure he’s totally neurotypical. /s

Public service announcement that if you use a VPN, a private browser and Invidious they can’t really track you. Actually just Invidious might be enough, I’ve never looked into it in detail.

I use Tor but it isn’t seamless, and you do have to go for a really low quality setting.

Oooh, the layers of psychology keep piling on. So they’re using a sex worker, who they probably believe is inferior and doing a bad thing, if they’re MAGA, but are themselves into being sexually humiliated within the context of a private interaction.

Yeah, we’re an interesting species sometimes.

I can’t be the only person on here that’s fully off the algorithm/surveillance grid. It’s still possible to get caught in bubbles the old-fashioned way, I guess. I try to listen to something/someone new and weird every once in a while.

I didn’t notice that, it is an awful lot. I wonder if it’s a series of interviews recorded over days, rather than one big meeting.

It’s also possible this is just the raw video, and then there’s a bunch of “best takedowns” compilations they actually push. Like how Charlie Kirk would do live debates with inexperienced suckers.

Are they still editing out any part where the hater loses?

Yes, I did listen to one of them out of curiosity

That is how they get you. And probably the algorithm thinks you can be baited again.

From what I’ve gleaned, there’s a tendency to see the sex act as shameful, but moreso for the woman. So psychologically, they’re still “owning them” in that exchange.

It’s entirely possible the camgirls that go on this channel are the kind that see their clients as marks, as well, so there’s a funny kind of symmetry to the exchange.

I’ve known some nice rich people, though. It’s more that it makes you more of whatever you were before.

Ditto on the “it’s not as easy as just being mean” part. Jails are chock full of counterexamples.

Ah yes, the Charlie Kirk “we selectively found 10 dumb people to debate and then edited out any part where they come across okay” genre.

Ahh, because of the 9 month gestation. 9+3=12

I thought this was about some kind of obscure subnormal float convention or something.

You probably know, but someone is going to point out an ipv4 address is four bytes.

That’s because humanity dates back to the teletype era, before bytes. It was decided that saving candles was more important than having the extra century of lifespan.

Now, by convention, the leftmost candle being unlit indicates it’s a standard human and not a member of another species-alphabet, possibly requiring multiple cakes.

(On a serious note, aging is not necessarily thought to be as simple as just the Hayflick limit)

Look, an OpenRISC user.

64 bits and you get to watch heat death slowly set in. (Or, y’know, cosmological catastrophe depending on the full physics)

You win Lemmy, I need this one explained.

Alright. Thanks for responding, anyway.

I get OP was a joke, but I was trying to make a serious observation.

Say you have some kind of stochastic algorithm that works on the assumption it’s fed a composite number most of the time. Maybe something like Pollard’s Rho algorithm, where whatever number theoretic structure you need accumulates slowly over time as a result. You decide to just pick a large number at random for each iteration.

Implicitly, you’ve solved the problem of finding a composite number by assuming all (large) numbers are composite, like in this post. It is pretty close, like also mentioned in this post. If that’s not good enough, you could also use a primality test that fails some small portion of the time, which do exist, and use less power than guaranteed tests.