They say it will price them out, but that depends on the break point. The reason they like H-1Bs is they can get workers who will work for less and work more hours because they are trapped in the H-1B structure and are terrified to lose their job, because then they will be deported. So if they truly make $15-20k in profit for the company, will changing to a US based worker who likely will want a higher salary and not work crazy hours be worth it? My guess is they just lock in the H-1Bs for more years and pay them less to keep their profits up. Or they try outsourcing straight to India again and skip bringing them to the US at all.

Cppcheck doesn't flag anything in Waffle Iron's example.

It also doesn't find anything wrong with:

std::vector<int> vec = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
auto it = vec.begin();
vec.push_back(6);
std::cout << *it << std::endl;

Which is another common example of how you can write memory errors without using C++ pointers.

Sure, so C++ is safe as long as it's used in a way that makes it incredibly painful. Sounds good. Let's just require all C++ code everywhere to be written that way. Rust usage will skyrocket overnight.

He unintentionally used Signal? How drunk was he?

So far, but it looks like Samsung is giving it a go.

For a really rigorous definition of "fair", it's impossible to have fair democracy at all. Arrow's Theorem demonstrates this to a large degree, although many have argued that some of his fairness axioms are excessive. More recent research has concluded that fairness is the wrong standard, because there's no way for an electorate's "will" to really be fairly represented by any electoral system, not in all cases. Some systems can do better most of the time (and "winner take all" is particularly bad), but all systems fail in some cases.

What we need to aim for instead of fairness is "legitimacy", which is more about building broad acceptance of the system than about fixing the system itself, though it's easier to build acceptance for better-designed systems.

Having the country's top politicians continually claiming the system is unfair and rigged is, of course, the worst possible thing to do if you want to build support for the legitimacy of the system.

I decided to check :-)

According to the Book Censorship Database from the Every Library Institute, both "Of Mice and Men" and "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" have been challenged, but only "Of Mice and Men" was removed, though "restricted" is more accurate. The Birdville Independent School District in Texas removed the book from general access, allowing access only to the AP English class, and the Indian River County Schools in Florida restricted it to high school students.

No Doctor Suess books were banned, although Suess Enterprises voluntarily ceased publication of six books.

Indeed, No True Scotsman would use STL with C++.

The last job I had where I had to use C/C++, we automatically ran an expensive static analysis tool every time we checked in code. I'd estimate that it only found about half of the potential segfaults, and it made up for that by finding twice as many false positives.

Nope. If I had used st::list instead of std::vector, it would have been perfectly fine and officially supported. (Assuming I changed "i+10" to "i+11" in order to make the algorithm actually terminate, although that change wouldn't affect the vector crash.).

The problem is that there are dozens of different rules you have to remember to apply to the different types of lists and iterators. And that's only talking about that one topic. There are hundreds of other rules covering a multitude of language aspects that you have to mentally apply against every single line of code you write, many of which can potentially cause memory corruption.

That is a dangerous misconception. You don't need to use any pointers to get memory errors in C++:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>
 
int main() {
    std::vector<int> v = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9};
    for (auto i : v) {
        if (i % 2 == 0) {
            v.push_back(i + 10);
        }
        printf("%d\n", i);
    }
 
    return 0;
}
 
$ g++ -Wall -pedantic t.cpp
$ echo $?
0
$ ./a.out
 
1
2
-947527061
1600570778
5
6
7
8
9

Are you seriously trying to suggest that never allocating memory is not also a "straight jacket"?

You seem to be saying that a currently existing bowdlerized version C++ is safe for close-world problems. Possibly so, but that still leaves C++ unsuitable for open-world problems. That makes C++ only suitable for niche applications. Why learn it?

If you just use Rust or any other memory safe language, you won't have to worry about what kind of "world" you're writing for, or about choosing from a range of increasingly dangerous "profiles".

I have mine connected to a Raspberry Pi and a Google Chromecast. I can update the Pi myself and if the Chromecast fails, gets EOLed or just enshittified, I'm out $30 and still have a functional TV with the Pi. Then I just throw some other inexpensive device on it.

By contrast, the 'Smart' TV leaves me stuck. If it gets enshittified or EOLed, I don't have much in the way of options unless I can figure out a way to lobotomize it and make it a dumb TV.

Meanwhile, the all-or-nothing Smart TV removes real disincentives for enshittification.

So no, for the consumer, it really does NOT make sense. For corporate executives rubbing their hands waiting for enshitification day, it makes a lot of sense, unfortunately.

The thin is, the artists WANT to keep the prices down because they (or at least their managers) understand that fans able to get tickets and see concerts is a driving force for their fandom. You don't get big or even stay big by only being seen by a few wealthy patrons (or their kids).

Actually, they own a few and have a contractual lock on many many more.

The big problem with these "smart" things is that it's getting hard to avoid them. Several years ago I was looking for TV. A few dozen "smart" TVs to choose from but exactly 2 non-smart TVs. I don't mean 2 models, I mean 2 TVs in the whole store. Luckily one of them was suitable.