I've written move constructors that just call a swap under the hood, because it's less expensive than reinitializing a moderately complicated object just to have the destructor note it's in its "empty state" and do nothing. I thought that was the point of letting `move` leave objects in a valid but otherwise unspecified state. I think the alternative entails the standard saying that every domain of values for an object type needs a "zero" element, which would be silly.

Every programming language with a foreign-function interface... meaning pretty much all of them... allow you to use C, and thus falls for the same criticism that you made.

Surely it'd be better to sequester the carbon as fuel. Then carbon fuels become the ultimate chemical battery.

The idea of "automated programming" goes back before the construction of the first turing complete computers in the 1940s. It's all very easy to imagine. Although tooling is reliably gotten better, wake me when things like static analysis can reliably pick up race conditions, and use after free.

People respond to incentives. Chance the incentives, change the outcome.

Oh sure, that could be a possible dynamic.

On the other hand, revolutions tend to be well-intentioned murderous affairs.

History has born out a known workable solution. It's called incrementalism, which respects that things are complicated place.

They won't teach you that in Critical Social Justice class. In fact, they won't teach you any facts or history that'd cause you to question the holy cause of Cosmic Justice. Never mind the millions who died at the altar of "the greater good".

"hurt"

Claims of harm are so commonly abused as to trivialize the actual underlying issues. This does not stop political ideologues using "impact over intentions" and "traumatizing hearing words" from bullying anyone and everyone who doesn't kowtow to their madness.

The problem with ethical, is that politics is characterized by group-level delusions. The woke turn that dynamic nasty, with some seriously toxic behaviour. There's no ethics principle here, no interest in understanding what's real, perspective taking, finding real solutions, or even describing problems. It's just the naked pursuit of power.

The next 10 years will see a serious shake-up an ravelling of supply chains.

Maybe learn some sed 1 liners.

Chinese companies aren't actually separate from the Communist Party. Aside from owners and societal power structures, CCP official are embedded in all major institutions and companies.

Every computer architecture has to treat machine code as memory at some point. It doesn't matter if that's on the chip -- as in von Neumann -- or when the instructions are loaded and declared a "module" as in Harvard. And von Neumann never stopped us from implementing that NX bit that it attached to pages of memory. You just go around it when solving real world problems, like a just-in-time compiler, or even a scripting language whose instructions are entirely in "data" memory.

The problem with computer security is the incentives that we work under when we build and develop software. There are solutions -- maybe comparatively cheap solutions, but the free market solution is stuck in a cr*p local minima.

"The message" is an extremist diatribe. About 40% of the population don't notice because it is convenient to them, and/or it is so ever present to be taken for "reality", and/or they simply don't know much about society and culture.

I think the point was to retcon the entire show for the sake of the far left politics of the shows writers and producers.

That is called psychological projection.