"I'm glad I was caught; I was mentally deranged. Now I am cured.

I ask only to be shot while my mind is still clean."

Isn't that what you rather mean?

It's all Chode up ins! Now gimme my 1½ inches of reinforced carbon-carbon and a railgun and we'll duke it out like real space lozenges.

Utilizer of high mathematics. Amateur in everything else.

I mean, the guy ought to at least pass comment on various theories on why AI, in the sense of being able to write computer programs where plug-and-chug isn't, isn't going to happen. For example, the current iteration of Penrose's argument against Strong AI.

Wish he'd stick to astrophysics though. Seems he's still got some left in him, hate to see him waste it sounding like some dilettante.

The way the scam works is that whenever the Automated System says you weren't lined up correctly for your 10-minute mugshot, or your hands weren't on the keyboard for a large enough percent of the time, or something along those lines, the company docks your pay for that period. (Possibly also the one afterward.) Obviously the company doesn't reject the work done during that time, oh no -- that's for free.

And good luck having that decision reviewed: your gig will be up as soon as you say "lawsuit". Any internal mechanism for the same goal will massively favour the employer.

It's an IT sweatshop tool, that's what it is. No surprise that the proponent is subcontinental.

>Textbook whataboutism.

Textbook textbookism.

>proven inapplicable to reality,

Well, maybe not so much inapplicable to reality as divergent from it. Empirically anyway... bane of applied mathematicians everywhere.

That's a mathematical argument. Those always take the form of a proof; otherwise they're a priori bunk.

The next step is review, and seeing if papers that cite this one appear. If review finds the proof broken, or the proof is such that it leads nowhere (i.e. there's no citations), then we can say that the argument is bunk. Until then nothing has been "proven".

Always make the folder. Or use a tool that creates one to be safe, then moves the single directory out of there if it wasn't actually required. Hell, write one -- everyone hates Perl, right?

I read it the exact opposite way: that subhierarchies should start at the root of the archive. So I answered no, meaning that it's good practice to have archives only write into a single directory when extracted.

Might as well point a dowsing rod at people, or have a panel of self-described experts look for "tells" not unlike a gaggle of highschoolers.

Oh do check out an actual 8-bit system. You'll find ROM entry vectors everywhere: unless you figure the syscalls are somehow long enough to fit in three bytes...

>Microsoft's consoles are nothing like those in the 8 or 16-bit days,

Yet you insist on reading me like I had said so!

To clarify just for you, I'm pointing out that inlining (among others) is a petty optimization such as those that were relevant twenty years ago, which Microsoft holds on to because of reasons undiscussed and effects unmeasured. This makes programs for their consoles _fucking awful_.

What's that got to do with emulating LL/SC? Look it up; the issue is a "little bit" more involved than emitting the right instruction.

In particular, how they're emulating PowerPC LL/SC on x86 without heavyhanded methods such as virtualizing all memory accesses to LL'd pages with the MMU.