So if you scroll back up to my "non awkward" reference in my OP, it was referring to this, what "awkward" referred to was this:

int v3 = p3[2 * y * z + 3 * z + 4];

This is awkward. You can dynamically allocate multiple dimensional matrices in C# and dereference them unawkwardly like this:

int v3 = p3[x][y][z];

Python has a similar construct (through the numpy library), that is syntactic sugar for the same literal types of C constructs you are referring to. It just hides them and makes them "non awkward".

I've not used FORTRAN, but I'm told it's the same. Not sure.

Someone claimed on stack exchange that C99 could do better than your example, but now I have my doubts. But all you have done so far is confirm that I was right about my original statement. You could have at least asked what I meant about "awkwardness" before telling me that I was wrong. FFS.

Can you show the declaration and dynamic memory allocation mechanism you are referring to, so that we can be sure we are talking about the same thing? Two dimensional example is fine.

Dynamic allocation required discontinuity before C99. C99 fixed this.

I looked into this. I'm in the same boat as you. They updated the C standard in 99 (C99) to solve the double referencing problem of dynamically allocated arrays. So my comment describe an advantage that FORTRAN hasn't had for about 25 years. LOL. Anyway, it's good that I was wrong; it means C programs are faster now. ;-P

FORTRAN mainly beats C because the main, non-awkward way to use multi-dimensional matrices in C results in the matrix being allocated to non-contiguous memory. This is performance relevant, because this will cause the execution pipeline to stall.

Fortran fixes this. If you use the right keyword in C#, it also fixes it. The NumPy library, which uses an external C library, also fixes it, but that library is built using the "awkward" method I mentioned.

For sure. A military pilot over a populated area has an absolute obligation to make every effort to ensure the plane does not hit a civilian area, up to and including dying with the plane if that's what this requires. This happened over San Diego like a decade ago. I said the same thing then, and it's exactly what happened. It's going to be what happens this time, too.

China has the world's largest PPP GDP, yo. This isn't the case of some impoverished, fledgling country doing this.

Their "eyes" are uninteresting to me.

I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying "Jeffrey Dahmer at and killed people, so I will too?"

I mean, if you storm the Capital while setting up a Guillotine outside, you're probably an extremist.

You used the same language that climate deniers use when they talk about carbon just being fertilizer and the like. The implication is that this is harmless. 300 million years of carbon is well beyond harmless.

Inaccurate. The fossil fuel inventory represents millions of years of biomass, with captured carbon from that entire period of history. Ill-thought out, poorly reasoned, and uninformed comments like this one are a plague. THINK, DUDE.

Imagine his entire administration trying to keep its mouth shut. And imagine techies working on the program keeping their mouth shut. It doesn't work any which way.

You are woefully misinformed. The founders were so concerned about this, they wrote the 10th Amendment just to make it clear. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, there was some argument that these amendments weren't necessary at all, because of the principle of enumerated powers (the idea that only those things expressly enumerated were powers of the government at all). Thank goodness the framers of the bill of rights new dundards like you would come along and wrote it anyway. In any case, you are dead wrong. The Bill of rights expressly restricts the power of government.

There's been a lot of back and forth on whether or not (and if so, how much) the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. Obviously the issue was cleared up in D.C. v Heller, but there's been no clear guidance at what various kinds of administrative or situational restrictions are allowed (such as concealed carry, et al). Or for that matter silencers, and so on.