I have mod points right now, so I just checked the interface. There's a link "Moderate" on the bottom of each post. If you click on it, it takes you to the home page, for some reason. If you have enough restraint to hover it without clicking on it, it pops up a menu of the various moderation possibilities, and you can (presumably) click on one to moderate the post.
Posts still appear to have moderation values, and there's a link you can click on to choose a threshold (and thus filter by score), but it's very very small (to the right of the "All", "Informative", etc., line, and a few pixels large).
Conclusion: All the moderation functionality does appear to still exist, but the UI is terrible.
I have also observed some missing functionality (permalink to comment, comment without specifying a title, comment as Anonymous Coward without logging out). This comment was sent from Beta for research purposes, but I think I'm going to go back to Classic for actual browsing.
It may be better to realize that rewriting it in Python will prevent this whole class of problems and a bunch of others, and is the way to go.
It's well known among programmer circles that rewriting a program in a different language in order to work around bugs you don't understand just tends to make things worse. Such may be the same with patent laws.
Normally journals claim copyright on the published version of the paper, after it's been edited and typeset by the journal, and don't mind academics sharing the original "preprint" version that was edited and typeset by the original author. (They don't have any reasonable copyright claim on the preprints anyway.) Sending takedowns on preprints is unusual enough to make the news, which is why it's on Slashdot now.
The journal also doesn't pay the academics for their papers; journals work like distributors in the retail market, i.e. their purpose is to make the papers more widely available / discoverable / searchable, in addition to reviewing them to ensure appropriateness and quality (although it's arguable that this is actually a useful function of the journal, given that they don't pay the reviewers either).
Incidentally, my papers have been published in multiple conference proceedings, and I didn't sign a contract for any of them. I assume the contract exists, but the papers were all coauthored, and I think the journals only sought a contract with one of the authors. If this is indeed the case, it makes the situation even more complex.
If you want a "this cannot happen" with core dump in C, just use abort(). Unless its behaviour is specifically overriden, it's specified to exit the program as unsuccessful termination by the C standards (e.g. 220.127.116.11p2 of C11), and to core dump by POSIX (about as portable as you can get where core dumps are concerned; in straight C, they might not necessarily exist). It also has the benefit of being pretty short, and not undefined behaviour at all.
Of course, that doesn't work in the kernel, but then neither would the other methods you suggested.
It's worse than that. In general, there's nothing stopping anyone sending an email from any address they like; the From: address is simply written onto the email by the sender, much the same way as there's nothing preventing someone sending physical mail writing any return address they like on the envelope. Of course, this makes it kind-of easy to spam, so various methods have sprung up over the years for people to validate the From: address on an email, but there's no universal method that will work for every email you might ever receive.
In general, you should never trust the From: address on an email for any purpose whatsoever other than determining who the sender wants you to think they are.
99.99% of programmers don't need to use single = in a conditional, so add a compiler switch to disallow it as a syntax error instead of just a warning.
In gcc, you can do -Werror=parentheses if you want to make this an error rather than a warning.