5C5C5C @ 5C5C5C @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

245

Joined

2 yr. ago

I use thread sanitizer and address sanitizer in my CI, and they have certainly helped in some cases, but they don't catch everything. In fact it's the cases that they miss which are by far the most subtle instances of undefined behavior of all.

They also slow down execution so severely that I can't use them when trying to recreate issues that occur in production.

I'm not sure if you're genuinely asking what a test suite is or if this is a sarcistic joke about how no one bothers to test their C++ code.

And even if you do get to use pure modern C++ you'll still get burned by subtle cases of undefined behavior (e.g. you probably haven't memorized every iterator invalidation rule for every container type) that force you to spend weeks debugging an inexplicable crash that happened in production but can only be recreated in 1/10000 runs of your test suite, but vanishes entirely if you compile in debug mode and try to use gdb.

And don't even get me started on multi-threading and concurrency.

There's a difference between "You have to decide when to synchronize your state" and "If you make any very small mistake that appears to be perfectly fine in the absence of extremely rigorous scrutiny then this code block will cause a crash or some other incomprehensible undefined behavior 1/10000 times that it gets run, leaving you with no indication of what went wrong or where the problem is."

I'm not saying you can't do multi-threading or concurrency in C++. The problem is that it's far too easy to get data races or deadlocks by making subtle syntactical mistakes that the compiler doesn't catch. pthreads does nothing to help with that.

If you don't need to share any data across threads then sure, everything is easy, but I've never seen such a simple use case in my entire professional career.

All these people talking about "C++ is easy, just don't use pointers!" must be writing the easiest applications of all time and also producing code that's so inefficient they'd probably get performance gains by switching to Python.

Your graph also cuts out early. Eventually you want to get performance gains with multi-threading and concurrency, and then the line drops all the way into hell.

Yeah that's my big takeaway here: If the people who are rolling out this technology cannot make these assurances then the technology has no right to exist.

"Instantly" on a geological scale 🙃

I can't be bothered to read any of that unhinged raving in detail but this line jumped out to me and the irony is just delectable:

You have a serious ego issue where any time someone challenges you, you have a full on fucking meltdown.

Clearly I'm the one having the meltdown here 😂

TIL caring about issues that cause unimaginable degrees of unnecessary suffering and also threaten to end human civilization as we know it is trolling.

One person posting a lot is not astroturfing. Astroturfing is about faking the appearance that many different people support the same cause. If it's the same account doing all the posting then they're not trying to give the appearance of being many different people.

At worst you could call it spamming. But personally I hope they keep up the spamming because seeing all troglodyte meat industry shills make asses out of themselves is giving me a new lease on life.

Shhhh we can't let them know that George Soros is secretly a radical leftist vegan.

You aren't weighing in on it while blatantly implying that the group in question is "idiotic", okay buddy 🥴

You're also asserting that my definition was wrong without saying anything about how it was wrong or what would be correct.

What are you even contributing to the conversation? Why did you waste the electricity to transmit any of the utterly worthless bytes that you did? And why am I wasting my time responding?

The last question has an easy answer: I have nothing better to do while I poop. But the rest of the questions are truly a mystery.

Just because you personally disagree with the goal of a grassroots movement does not mean it is a fake grassroots movement.

A grassroots movement is very simply a collection of people, usually belonging to a community with a shared interest, who work together to publicly advocate for a particular cause. This is contrast to a powerful or moneyed interest that lobbies for a cause that usually only benefits a small group. When a powerful or moneyed interest is paying large groups of people (or alternatively bot farms) to manufacture the appearance that a grassroots movement is supporting their cause, THAT is astroturfing. The agreeability of the cause has nothing to do with how the strategy gets labeled.

You have such a tenuous grasp on the meanings of such basic words that you might want to consider hesitating before referring to other people as idiotic.

Your eyes broken bro

What an absolutely bizarre whataboutism, so vapid and self-evidently disingenuous that I can't believe I'm about to waste my time picking it apart, but here we go:

First of all, rescuing children from traumatically abusive environments is not the same as what the meat industry does to calves. Separation from parents is inherently traumatic itself, but that needs to be weighed against the degree of harm that the abusive parent might do, on a case-by-case basis.

Secondly, there are certainly cases of the government separating children from their parents that should be protested. Like when Texas defines transgender-affirming households to be committing child abuse and uses that as a reason to forcibly separate the child. Or when immigration control separates migrant children from their parents.

This might come as a shock to you, but it's possible to care about and advocate for more than one issue at a time. I don't know if your emotional capacity might be limited to just caring about one thing, but most people don't suffer from that limitation.

Your idea of nuance would have us all sitting on our hands while unsustainable industries make the world we live in uninhabitable and put an end to humanity as we know it.

Astroturfing implies that a corporation or government agency with large amounts of funding are paying individuals or bots to spread misinformation for their employer's financial or strategic benefit.

You might not know this, but there isn't a "Big Vegan" industry with deep pockets to financially support astroturfing. Agrobusinesses that grow vegetation make more money off the meat industry than they would if they centered their produce around vegetarian or vegan diets. Businesses that do cater to vegans barely manage to scrape by and have no margins to support social media manipulation; they barely even have budget for conventional marketing.

What you're actually witnessing is legitimate grassroots efforts to inform people about the harm that the meat industry causes. You see "astroturfing" doesn't mean "a lot of people are saying things I don't like". It actually means "grassroots campaign but fake", hence the name "astroturf", which is a fake kind of grass.

A little disingenuous, yes, but the reality is that if we redirected the meat industry's subsidies towards a supply chain that centers around plant based diets, we'd have a more sustainable industry as well as a more affordable food supply for everyone.

Sustaining the status quo of meat consumption is a constant battle against the laws of physics.

This is the argument that I used when I was an adolescent who thought himself very wise and smart but in reality just wanted an excuse to not have to change the lifestyle that I was comfortable with.

Saying "life only comes from death" is a cowardly reductionism. It creates a false equivalence between plant and animal life that lets you ignore the fact that sustaining human life does not require the wanton suffering of animals. And it certainly doesn't require animals to be suffering at such massive scales and in such cruel ways.

You're probably someone who will cite studies which indicate that plants emit distress signals when they take physical damage, and you'll argue that therefore plants suffer the same as animals. But that's an intellectually dishonest argument. Suffering as we understand it is more than just a chemical reaction to stimulus; it emerges from an awareness of being alive and an instinctual desire to remain alive and unharmed. Plants do not have that kind of awareness.

There are predators in nature that only know how to hunt to survive. Their digestive systems are specialized to consume the bodies of other smaller animals. And their ecosystems depend on those predators to balance out the reproductive cycles of their prey, otherwise the prey animals would become overpopulated and wipe out life forms lower on the food chain.

The fact of the matter is that humans have not been a collaborative member of any ecosystem for tens of thousands of years. We cause massive harm to every ecosystem that we're a part of, and the mass slaughter of farm animals is the worst thing we've done to this planet yet, even more harmful overall than CO2 emissions. We're eroding the soil and using up the fresh water in ways we can't sustain, and then to top it all off we're inflicting the largest scale unnecessary suffering in the history of this planet. And all of it is being done so that humans can enjoy a pleasure that is both unnecessary and easily replaced with a small amount of agricultural and supply chain reform.

Humans are omnivores and the simple reality is that as an omnivore with options at your disposal you have a choice about whether the process of sustaining your life involves wanton suffering at a massive scale or not. If you think the suffering of animals is worth the pleasure you derive from eating their flesh then just be honest and say so. Don't be a coward like I used to be by pretending that animals and plants are the same.