the first F was supposed to mean "failed" ;).
You're right. Not sure what i was thinking...

Do not you understand what CGI is, son? Protip: It's not Computer Generated Imagery in this context.

It's obviously $200 worth of M&M's

FTFY

So essentially you're saying that you, as a technically illiterate person, don't give a crap about the opinion of your sysadmin in technical questions.
Oh, wait, you've already mentioned you're a business person. Enjoy your Dunning-Kruger while it lasts.

Shall we fix your understanding of the English language while we're at it? Or would that be too mission-critical a business decision?

This makes your original claim less wrong how exactly?
Since you're so far beyond my level, it should be trivial to point out in which standard, (be it formal or informal, to lower the bar a bit for you) void main() is "valid C".
Protip.

That being said, i have nothing to add to sibling's post.

You talked about standards, and C89 is the first formal C standard. I'm sorry for your C knowledge if you are indeed oblivious of implicit int (hint: you can and must still return an int from "main([void])".
Furthermore probably sucks to think that a function taking no parameters like foo(void) and a function taking an unspecified number of parameters like foo() and (void) were the same thing. Your mind might be a bit C++-damaged (in C++, foo() in fact means foo(void)).
Educate much?
Consider char (*foo(int))[4];
What's the type of foo?

No. None of the C Standards ever had void a valid return type for main, and, frankly all of them (since we're talking standards, that means C89 through C11) give you int main(void) and int main(int argc, char **argv)(and equivalent).
It's not like i didn't link a source.

Yes, C89 allowed leaving away the int, that's called "implicit int". Needless to point out, the return type is still int.

Nope. Not valid C. Valid would be int main(void), int main(int argc, char **argv)(and equivalent), and in some cases int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) (and equivalent).
Source

And what about the performance implications of emulating my massively parallel hardware in software?

Same reason there are razors "for men" and "for women", despite being essentially the same thing just differently colored.

Wait, that's not how it works?
Shit.

TOR doesn't operate at the MAC level, your MAC address doesn't make it past your gateway.
So the only way to leak your MAC address is actually transmitting it as whatever kind of application layer payload, or if your TOR entry node happens to be right on your local network...

Son, are you even trying?