And sometimes when talking directly to hardware, array[-1] is exactly what is needed.
And if that index would be 'out of bounds' for the object as the C abstract machine understands it, that's UB, and an optimizing compiler can do very unexpected things.
Yes, but would the EU have done this to one of their own companies? Obviously not. They just want to stick it to the foreigners - especially Americans. It's a big "fuck you" straight from the EU.
Surely Apple isn't an American company! It's head office is in Ireland, and almost all of its profits are made there.
The only thing a firewall should be doing is to detect and block (D)DoS-attacks and connections to and from ip on ports you don't want or you are sure you don't need, while allowing connections from other ip's and ports you actually do need.
But outbound connections to port 80 and 443 are guaranteed to be allowed in almost every environment, and an attacker can usually control the remote server, including on which port it listens and which protocol it speaks. And an attacker could also easily disguise communication as normal http or https traffic. In addition, a protocol has been created, standardized, and implemented in all modern browsers designed to work around the annoying port blocking restriction: websockets. So can we all stop pretending that blocking outbound connections to certain ports is actually helpful, rather than just making things harder and less efficient for everyone, without posing a significant barrier to actual attackers?
Not going to happen, and it never was. The rules that applied then apply now. Companies do not pay to rewrite all their applications in the latest new technology which does all the same stuff their old one did - and nothing more.
So be it, if that is what these companies desire. But they should keep in mind that it will become increasingly expensive to keep their software running on newer machines (and their old ones will fail, eventually), and if they even require new features, it might be very hard and expensive to find someone who is willing and able to implement them. I'm not saying they should rewrite everything in a new language every few years (which would be expensive and foolish busywork), but if you're stuck to one vendor and they announce they will no longer support the language you're using, that seems like a great time to start moving on. The longer you delay updating, the more expensive it gets.
Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?
Well given that he is paralyzed, I imagine even a small child wielding a pillow could kill him quite easily. So why don't you ask him what it's like going down any street at any time of the day, in any area, and having to worry about being mugged or raped or killed by anyone who isn't also in a wheelchair.
It's hypocritical and contradictory of them to state that they want to provide "a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all", yet they turn around and almost right away use a very unfriendly and unwelcoming threat like "We will exclude you from interaction".
And how would you maintain a friendly, safe, and welcoming environment without removing people who would make that environment unfriendly, unsafe, or unwelcoming?
The moderation policy even states that anyone could be "indefinitely excluded". That's also not not creating a "welcoming environment for all"!
I think it's quite clear that 'all' involves only those people who obey the rules. If the code of conduct stated "We will exclude you from interaction if you murder anyone", would you then be complaining that they are such hypocrites because they fail to provide a "friendly, safe, and welcoming environment" for people who really like to murder?
It's a total lack of justice, as far as I'm concerned. Arbitrary judgment, arbitrary enforcement, arbitrary punishment, and no public appeal process all reek of injustice.
Yes it's so terrible, that's probably why so many people who try out Rust mention how friendly and helpful the community is. A code of conduct is not like the law. When you are banned from the community (or leave it voluntarily) the code stops applying to you and you can happily complain about how unfairly you were treated on your blog, or slashdot, or wherever. There is no Rust-police that will come to your house and kidnap you. And the whole project is open source, anyone is free to fork it and start their own community.
Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.