So why not get rid of marriage? Then you don't need to even worry about it! There, problem solved.
After all, by your definition, it's just an overly moral stinky leftover from the time of barbarians.
I tell people that marriage is the #1 cause of divorce. Splitting after marriage is harder and more stressful, due to the legal complications, than after cohabiting.
Cohabiting couple - someone cheats, is abusive, whatever - "The door is there, your stuff is on the other side of it. Goodbye." Or alternatively, "I'm out of here. Goodbye"
I'm seeing this sentiment thrown around a lot in this thread. In my jurisdiction marriage+pre-nup is definitely better than cohabiting. Where I am (and likely elsewhere as well, seeing as we simply inherited our laws) cohabiting for 12 consecutive months leaves you both as common-law spouses to each other, which means it's legally considered a community-of-property marriage after 12 months of living together.
And a community-of-property/common-law marriage is a whole lot harder to dissolve than a pre-nupped one.
The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.
I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing. And you don't really need marriage to agree to something like that. Marriage itself doesn't really imply that at all; the details have to be worked out between the individuals.
What sort of terrible marriage are you in? As far as I'm concerned, unless my wife indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I'm gonna touch her however I want to without asking for permission. When she indicates she doesn't want to be touched I'll lay off until she indicates otherwise.
The sort of marriage that you're implying is normal is actually horrific... why get married if you have to explicitly ask permission?
I dunno about the rest, but I can't actually side with someone who is a self-confessed rapist. If she defines herself as such, no one sane should be running to her defence.
I don't know about their policies specifically, but its usually done so that if someone gets a hold of a password file and manages to break a few passwords, hopefully they'll have changed by the time the attacker tries to actually make use of them.
Which made sense 2 decades ago (or more): people had to break into your building to use your password. Nowadays someone just needs to have the password long enough to remotely install a keylogger (2 minutes, maybe?) so it doesn't buy you any security.
The problem with security is not the users, it's the sysads who don't actually know anything about security other than how to click in the correct place on the vendors product. The security is not thought through; even 12 seconds of reflection would tell you that forcing users to change their passwords on a consistent and predictable basis is going to result in consistent and predictable passwords.
Regardless of how broken your society is with regards to understanding a child's need to see its father, you missed the point. Being a parent is a valuable "profession", it provides a valuable service to society, and yet isn't factored in when considering an individual's pay.
I agree both that parenting is a valuable profession and a valuable service, however society (yours and mine) doesn't currently have a high correlation between valuable services and high pay. Why are you expecting that society in general would make an exception for this valuable service/profession?
Essentially, parents are expected to provide high quality labour for less than free, because not only is it unpaid
Maybe in the past, but courts have decided that even in the even of a pre-nup a woman who gave up a career to stay at home will still get paid. Legal precedence trumps everything else, and there's more than enough legal precedence showing that a woman will get paid in the event of divorce IF she gave up a career.
More interestingly, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why (or not, as the case may be) maintenance payments aren't taken into account when averaging women's earnings. Surely, due to it being income, it should be counted as income? And if it is, then the average women is actually earning more income than the average man.
Come back and argue this point when those things can be measured independently of what the subject feels.
You're missing the point entirely. That is not a possible thing to do given today's technology.
Well if you cannot measure that something exists why the hell are you asking me to apologise for its existence?
If someone says they are offended, then they are.
I've already said that I'm offended by you having the freedom to express an opinion - by your logic you must now apologise for exposing me to your opinion and run away and express your opinion elsewhere. I mean, that's exactly what you said must be done if you've offended someone, right?
The problem, which you are obstinately refusing to see, is that asking people to accept that they did wrong when they did no wrong is, in a cute act of recursion, wrong in and of itself, hence if you followed your own rules you run in circles forever. Just because *your* morals say that it is wrong doesn't mean that the person you are talking to shares your morals and also views it as wrong. The only arbiter is the law.
No, you don't have to do anything. You are free to be as big an asshole as you want. Just don't be surprised when you get called out on it. They are free to 1) not leave and 2) call you a self-centered, rude, obnoxious, offensive asshole. If you're OK with that, well, go on with your bad self. Just don't claim victimhood when they do.
I never claimed victimhood, I never claimed that my "feels" were infringed or that my rights were violated. You claimed that if someone else feels like a victim I should apologise. I claimed that until I break a law there's nothing you can do and thus there is nothing for me to apologise about
And, to be fair, the only obnoxious assholes in real life (the ones that get called that to their face, that is) are those like you, who believe that everyone else should pander to what is their idea of right and wrong, and not what society already decided upon in legislation. None of the large number of women I deal with daily have ever needed me to apologise for the way they feel. None of the literally hundreds of people I deal with face-to-face have ever called me anything but professional.
Face it, if it really is wrong of me to stare at some ladies behind, there'd be a law about it. Luckily for both of us, no court convicts based upon how a person felt, only facts are taken into evidence not feelings.
I'm afraid I'm going to side with western law and modern civilisation on this particular point - consensus being that your feelings are your problem, not mine. Until I break the law, they remain your problem.
By the same token, just because my wife feels neglected does not mean that I neglect her and just because my wife feels unloved does not mean that I do not love her.
Boy, I'm glad I'm not married to you. Part of being married is understanding that the other person's feelings, however justified (or not), are more important than you're stating here. If she feels neglected, it doesn't matter if she actually IS neglected or not. It's a problem that you and she need to work on together.
Hang one, why is her point of view more legitimate than mine?
If you think their offense isn't justified, tough shit.
Well, tough for them - I don't have to do anything if someone is offended by me - they have freedom of association to go associate with someone else. Very tough shit - they get to put up with it or leave.
That's because I understand the problem very well; it's an economic/fiscal one, not a cultural one. The poster I illustrated the problem to did not understand and was/is convinced that it was the culture that lowered womens' pay and not simply cold hard business logic.
More over children need fathers too, and encouraging overtime just reduces the time and energy they get.
That would be great! However I have already been convinced by the courts, the social workers, the child psychologists and the offices of the family advocate that my son needs no more than every alternate weekend with me. They all agreed that it was in the best interest of the child despite all my protestations. So now I'm free to devote my energies to making more money, which I do. Which in turn skews the average male salary upwards.
Unfortunately people like the parent poster who complained that women earned less do not take into account that dads like myself are skewing up the males' average salaries, and we do so because society already told us that we're mostly not needed in the childs life and our worth and value as fathers is only measured by the amount of money we pay in maintenance. In fact, we have nothing else to do so may as well work more for extra money.
I figure (due to high divorce rate) that income from maintenance should be included in a woman's income when we are measuring average salaries. Then we get a better picture of who makes more in society because from where I'm sitting the average woman makes more than the average man simply due to the maintenance payments.
A) No one has the right to not be offended. You don't have that right, I don't have that right and some random female who wants to jog directly in front of me doesn't have that right. If you think everyone has a right to be offended and must be apologised to, then please know that I am offended by your right to an opinion (hence, by your own fucked-up logic, I deserve an apology).
B) Just because someone "feels" offended, intimidated or ogled doesn't mean that they actually are offended, intimidated or ogled. Come back and argue this point when those things can be measured independently of what the subject feels. Until then all you're doing is pandering to whoever convinces you that they are the bigger "victim", and thus the system you propose will only reward professional victims disproportionately more.
C) You are free to do whatever the fuck you want to; however until I break a law you, and the person who "feels" harrassed, intimidated or whatever can go fuck yourselves. Courts and society agree with me on this one - it's a free country and you cannot prevent someone standing in a public place simply because your unmeasurable and unexplainable "feels" are being violated by their eyes.
I think that both genders have a right not to be stared at if they don't want to be. The way I look at it, the way men are wired (yes, there are biological differences between the genders, shock horror) to stare more than women are, and sometimes we don't realize (consciously) that we're doing it. That happens. I've done it without realizing. The important part is how you react once you're called on it, once you're consciously aware that you're doing it, and that you've made the woman in question uncomfortable. IN MY OPINION, the appropriate reaction is to quietly apologize, make corrections to the situation as warranted (for example, if you're on a treadmill that's behind a woman in yoga pants, and you got caught staring at her behind, offer to move to another treadmill), and let her vent a bit at you if she wants to.
Nonsense - looking at someone's fully clothed behind doesn't necessitate any apology. As for corrections, she is free to move to another treadmill that is not in front of me - the gym is filled with 'em.
Don't accept abuse, you've already apologized, but accepting a dressing-down for inappropriate behavior will not kill you.
I'm sorry, that's not inappropriate behaviour. She is free to leave. If you follow her then THAT is inappropriate behaviour. If she persists in staying directly in front of you and then complaining about being looked at then SHE is the problem, not you.
This applies in the other direction, too. A man should not be objectified or stared at either, IF he does not wish it. Culturally, IN MY OPINION, men are less likely to take offense at the attention,
That's the entire problem - what someone takes offense at. Just because someone was offended by you does not mean that you were offensive. By the same token, just because my wife feels neglected does not mean that I neglect her and just because my wife feels unloved does not mean that I do not love her.
Answer this question before you wade into this type of debate in the future: Why is a females subjective opinion more important than a males subjective opinion?
Anyone here who is older than 35 will remember that getting your first computer almost invariably entailed getting at least some sort of clue concerning programming it. Even if it was only "how to get DOS to free up enough space so I can run the game".
Those of us actually over the age of 35 didn't start on DOS;-)
poke 53280,0
You are either ignorant or want to be a victim. Obviously both sexes are affected by hormones, it's just that it's not okay to attribute every decision you don't like or every behaviour you don't understand to PMT or whatever.
I'm sorry but that sword cuts both ways - it's equally not okay to dismiss the influence of biology merely because the influence is something that you don't like. You can't always dismiss physiological effects as ignorance.
But by all means, let TDM clarify this for himself, rather than offer to... read his mind for us.
You don't need to read his mind, you can read his post. He's says nothing about the rationality of men. You need to do an awful amount of squirming to read any view on men in that post.
There is nothing to figure out. This is just this guys next fraud. It is not like this is his frist rodeo.
You misunderstand me - while I agree that this is a fraud, if it was not then a trade secret is better than a patent. I worded it wrong above, I should have said "In cases like this (unimaginable complexity which is what the inventor claims) a trade secret will be better than a patent".
Thats great advice. The problem is statistically men aren't working more, they are just getting paid more, and thats unfair.
I'll ignore everything else[1], but that statement has long been acknowledged as wrong . To be honest, if women were more valuable than men in the workplace (produced the same for less pay) the first all-female company to arise would sooner or later tower over the industry due to the lower employment costs. This does not happen - see here
[1] Discussing feelings is useless; there are no objective measures hence we come down to the argument of whose feelings matter more.
Yeah this is going to need a citation! Because I'm pretty sure "Stop staring at womens boobs" and "Raping people is bad" are not sexist statements!
As you wish:passed around everywhere. Nevermind who said it first, everyone's saying it now.
If only the feminist movement would restrict themselves to "don't abuse women", or "equal pay for equal work" there wouldn't be a problem - the problem is that they aren't interested in that sort of thing.
Relying on trade secrets is very dangerous. If someone else can independently figure out how it works, and build their own device, then he is left standing naked with no patent protection. He will have nothing. Trade secrets only work for things that are so difficult and complicated that there is little chance of someone else duplicating the invention.
That's what this is. Trade secrets will work better than patent protection in this case because of the difficulty in figuring out how this works.
Sorry, but C++ literally cannot offer any feature which is impossible in C
Apology accepted.
So when I mentioned zero-cost error handling, I was referring to an exception handling model that keeps all exception handling code -- your entire catch block -- entirely out of your hot path. It can be put in entirely separate cache lines. Basically ensuring that your non-exceptional code is all as close together and fast as possible.
FWIW, I'd expect my compiler to keep the code after the return statement below out of the "hot path" due to the unconditional return:
void foo () { // do things here, goto non_hot on error
return;
non_hot: // error-handler code goes here
}
If for some strange reason you find the above to not work, you can do the same with setjmp()/longjmp() - longjmp() totally fucks up the execution pipeline because it's not in the pipeline.
You can't do this in C. Please prove me wrong! I enjoy learning.
I would grant that poorly written C++ is probably much worse to detangle than poorly written C. However, well written C++ is just as usable and maintainable as well written C.
And which do you think you are more likely to run into? And which do you think is more likely to be contributed to your project?
It's in daily life which the simpler imperial measure system makes sense.
"Simpler"? Imperial and US Customary units are many things but simpler is not among them. You may be comfortable with them but that is not the same thing.
He has a point - in some areas it is simpler, in others it's harder. When everything is in base twelve you can get many more integer divisors out of it. For example, you can split a dozen people into 2 groups, 3 groups, 4 groups or 6 groups. Hence in some things it's easier to deal with base twelve. If you're allowed to have fractional units then metric is usually better, but it's easier to measure out / parcel out something (whether in cutting wood or baking bread) using a base of twelve, which is what most imperial units are.
You keep saying things as though you are contradicting the guy above you, but you aren't.
The point you are missing is that the GM exec is speaking as if Tesla is *and will remain* a fringe product. It most likely will not remain such, hence the fact that GM is afraid and talking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
So why not get rid of marriage? Then you don't need to even worry about it! There, problem solved. After all, by your definition, it's just an overly moral stinky leftover from the time of barbarians.
I tell people that marriage is the #1 cause of divorce. Splitting after marriage is harder and more stressful, due to the legal complications, than after cohabiting.
Cohabiting couple - someone cheats, is abusive, whatever - "The door is there, your stuff is on the other side of it. Goodbye." Or alternatively, "I'm out of here. Goodbye"
I'm seeing this sentiment thrown around a lot in this thread. In my jurisdiction marriage+pre-nup is definitely better than cohabiting. Where I am (and likely elsewhere as well, seeing as we simply inherited our laws) cohabiting for 12 consecutive months leaves you both as common-law spouses to each other, which means it's legally considered a community-of-property marriage after 12 months of living together.
And a community-of-property/common-law marriage is a whole lot harder to dissolve than a pre-nupped one.
Men seem to have an evolutionary imperative to cat about as much as they can.
And women don't?
The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.
I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing. And you don't really need marriage to agree to something like that. Marriage itself doesn't really imply that at all; the details have to be worked out between the individuals.
What sort of terrible marriage are you in? As far as I'm concerned, unless my wife indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I'm gonna touch her however I want to without asking for permission. When she indicates she doesn't want to be touched I'll lay off until she indicates otherwise.
The sort of marriage that you're implying is normal is actually horrific... why get married if you have to explicitly ask permission?
I dunno about the rest, but I can't actually side with someone who is a self-confessed rapist. If she defines herself as such, no one sane should be running to her defence.
I don't know about their policies specifically, but its usually done so that if someone gets a hold of a password file and manages to break a few passwords, hopefully they'll have changed by the time the attacker tries to actually make use of them.
Which made sense 2 decades ago (or more): people had to break into your building to use your password. Nowadays someone just needs to have the password long enough to remotely install a keylogger (2 minutes, maybe?) so it doesn't buy you any security.
The problem with security is not the users, it's the sysads who don't actually know anything about security other than how to click in the correct place on the vendors product. The security is not thought through; even 12 seconds of reflection would tell you that forcing users to change their passwords on a consistent and predictable basis is going to result in consistent and predictable passwords.
Regardless of how broken your society is with regards to understanding a child's need to see its father, you missed the point. Being a parent is a valuable "profession", it provides a valuable service to society, and yet isn't factored in when considering an individual's pay.
I agree both that parenting is a valuable profession and a valuable service, however society (yours and mine) doesn't currently have a high correlation between valuable services and high pay. Why are you expecting that society in general would make an exception for this valuable service/profession?
Essentially, parents are expected to provide high quality labour for less than free, because not only is it unpaid
Maybe in the past, but courts have decided that even in the even of a pre-nup a woman who gave up a career to stay at home will still get paid. Legal precedence trumps everything else, and there's more than enough legal precedence showing that a woman will get paid in the event of divorce IF she gave up a career.
More interestingly, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why (or not, as the case may be) maintenance payments aren't taken into account when averaging women's earnings. Surely, due to it being income, it should be counted as income? And if it is, then the average women is actually earning more income than the average man.
You're missing the point entirely. That is not a possible thing to do given today's technology.
Well if you cannot measure that something exists why the hell are you asking me to apologise for its existence?
If someone says they are offended, then they are.
I've already said that I'm offended by you having the freedom to express an opinion - by your logic you must now apologise for exposing me to your opinion and run away and express your opinion elsewhere. I mean, that's exactly what you said must be done if you've offended someone, right?
The problem, which you are obstinately refusing to see, is that asking people to accept that they did wrong when they did no wrong is, in a cute act of recursion, wrong in and of itself, hence if you followed your own rules you run in circles forever. Just because *your* morals say that it is wrong doesn't mean that the person you are talking to shares your morals and also views it as wrong. The only arbiter is the law.
No, you don't have to do anything. You are free to be as big an asshole as you want. Just don't be surprised when you get called out on it. They are free to 1) not leave and 2) call you a self-centered, rude, obnoxious, offensive asshole. If you're OK with that, well, go on with your bad self. Just don't claim victimhood when they do.
I never claimed victimhood, I never claimed that my "feels" were infringed or that my rights were violated. You claimed that if someone else feels like a victim I should apologise. I claimed that until I break a law there's nothing you can do and thus there is nothing for me to apologise about
And, to be fair, the only obnoxious assholes in real life (the ones that get called that to their face, that is) are those like you, who believe that everyone else should pander to what is their idea of right and wrong, and not what society already decided upon in legislation. None of the large number of women I deal with daily have ever needed me to apologise for the way they feel. None of the literally hundreds of people I deal with face-to-face have ever called me anything but professional.
Face it, if it really is wrong of me to stare at some ladies behind, there'd be a law about it. Luckily for both of us, no court convicts based upon how a person felt, only facts are taken into evidence not feelings.
I'm afraid I'm going to side with western law and modern civilisation on this particular point - consensus being that your feelings are your problem, not mine. Until I break the law, they remain your problem.
Boy, I'm glad I'm not married to you. Part of being married is understanding that the other person's feelings, however justified (or not), are more important than you're stating here. If she feels neglected, it doesn't matter if she actually IS neglected or not. It's a problem that you and she need to work on together.
Hang one, why is her point of view more legitimate than mine?
If you think their offense isn't justified, tough shit.
Well, tough for them - I don't have to do anything if someone is offended by me - they have freedom of association to go associate with someone else. Very tough shit - they get to put up with it or leave.
You illustrate the problem for women quite well.
That's because I understand the problem very well; it's an economic/fiscal one, not a cultural one. The poster I illustrated the problem to did not understand and was/is convinced that it was the culture that lowered womens' pay and not simply cold hard business logic.
More over children need fathers too, and encouraging overtime just reduces the time and energy they get.
That would be great! However I have already been convinced by the courts, the social workers, the child psychologists and the offices of the family advocate that my son needs no more than every alternate weekend with me. They all agreed that it was in the best interest of the child despite all my protestations. So now I'm free to devote my energies to making more money, which I do. Which in turn skews the average male salary upwards.
Unfortunately people like the parent poster who complained that women earned less do not take into account that dads like myself are skewing up the males' average salaries, and we do so because society already told us that we're mostly not needed in the childs life and our worth and value as fathers is only measured by the amount of money we pay in maintenance. In fact, we have nothing else to do so may as well work more for extra money.
I figure (due to high divorce rate) that income from maintenance should be included in a woman's income when we are measuring average salaries. Then we get a better picture of who makes more in society because from where I'm sitting the average woman makes more than the average man simply due to the maintenance payments.
A) No one has the right to not be offended. You don't have that right, I don't have that right and some random female who wants to jog directly in front of me doesn't have that right. If you think everyone has a right to be offended and must be apologised to, then please know that I am offended by your right to an opinion (hence, by your own fucked-up logic, I deserve an apology).
B) Just because someone "feels" offended, intimidated or ogled doesn't mean that they actually are offended, intimidated or ogled. Come back and argue this point when those things can be measured independently of what the subject feels. Until then all you're doing is pandering to whoever convinces you that they are the bigger "victim", and thus the system you propose will only reward professional victims disproportionately more.
C) You are free to do whatever the fuck you want to; however until I break a law you, and the person who "feels" harrassed, intimidated or whatever can go fuck yourselves. Courts and society agree with me on this one - it's a free country and you cannot prevent someone standing in a public place simply because your unmeasurable and unexplainable "feels" are being violated by their eyes.
(PS. I'm waiting for my apology)
I think that both genders have a right not to be stared at if they don't want to be. The way I look at it, the way men are wired (yes, there are biological differences between the genders, shock horror) to stare more than women are, and sometimes we don't realize (consciously) that we're doing it. That happens. I've done it without realizing. The important part is how you react once you're called on it, once you're consciously aware that you're doing it, and that you've made the woman in question uncomfortable. IN MY OPINION, the appropriate reaction is to quietly apologize, make corrections to the situation as warranted (for example, if you're on a treadmill that's behind a woman in yoga pants, and you got caught staring at her behind, offer to move to another treadmill), and let her vent a bit at you if she wants to.
Nonsense - looking at someone's fully clothed behind doesn't necessitate any apology. As for corrections, she is free to move to another treadmill that is not in front of me - the gym is filled with 'em.
Don't accept abuse, you've already apologized, but accepting a dressing-down for inappropriate behavior will not kill you.
I'm sorry, that's not inappropriate behaviour. She is free to leave. If you follow her then THAT is inappropriate behaviour. If she persists in staying directly in front of you and then complaining about being looked at then SHE is the problem, not you.
This applies in the other direction, too. A man should not be objectified or stared at either, IF he does not wish it. Culturally, IN MY OPINION, men are less likely to take offense at the attention,
That's the entire problem - what someone takes offense at. Just because someone was offended by you does not mean that you were offensive. By the same token, just because my wife feels neglected does not mean that I neglect her and just because my wife feels unloved does not mean that I do not love her.
Answer this question before you wade into this type of debate in the future: Why is a females subjective opinion more important than a males subjective opinion?
This. Pretty much this.
Anyone here who is older than 35 will remember that getting your first computer almost invariably entailed getting at least some sort of clue concerning programming it. Even if it was only "how to get DOS to free up enough space so I can run the game".
Those of us actually over the age of 35 didn't start on DOS ;-)
poke 53280,0
You are either ignorant or want to be a victim. Obviously both sexes are affected by hormones, it's just that it's not okay to attribute every decision you don't like or every behaviour you don't understand to PMT or whatever.
I'm sorry but that sword cuts both ways - it's equally not okay to dismiss the influence of biology merely because the influence is something that you don't like. You can't always dismiss physiological effects as ignorance.
I don't see how it can be taken any other way.
But by all means, let TDM clarify this for himself, rather than offer to... read his mind for us.
You don't need to read his mind, you can read his post. He's says nothing about the rationality of men. You need to do an awful amount of squirming to read any view on men in that post.
There is nothing to figure out. This is just this guys next fraud. It is not like this is his frist rodeo.
You misunderstand me - while I agree that this is a fraud, if it was not then a trade secret is better than a patent. I worded it wrong above, I should have said "In cases like this (unimaginable complexity which is what the inventor claims) a trade secret will be better than a patent".
Thats great advice. The problem is statistically men aren't working more, they are just getting paid more, and thats unfair.
I'll ignore everything else[1], but that statement has long been acknowledged as wrong . To be honest, if women were more valuable than men in the workplace (produced the same for less pay) the first all-female company to arise would sooner or later tower over the industry due to the lower employment costs. This does not happen - see here
[1] Discussing feelings is useless; there are no objective measures hence we come down to the argument of whose feelings matter more.
"The only ones promoting sexism are SJW's."
Yeah this is going to need a citation! Because I'm pretty sure "Stop staring at womens boobs" and "Raping people is bad" are not sexist statements!
As you wish:passed around everywhere. Nevermind who said it first, everyone's saying it now. If only the feminist movement would restrict themselves to "don't abuse women", or "equal pay for equal work" there wouldn't be a problem - the problem is that they aren't interested in that sort of thing.
Is it that offensive that people would think sexism, racism and homophobia are a bit knuckledragging and stupid?
The only ones promoting sexism are SJW's.
reply to undo accidental mod
Relying on trade secrets is very dangerous. If someone else can independently figure out how it works, and build their own device, then he is left standing naked with no patent protection. He will have nothing. Trade secrets only work for things that are so difficult and complicated that there is little chance of someone else duplicating the invention.
That's what this is. Trade secrets will work better than patent protection in this case because of the difficulty in figuring out how this works.
Sorry, but C++ literally cannot offer any feature which is impossible in C
Apology accepted.
So when I mentioned zero-cost error handling, I was referring to an exception handling model that keeps all exception handling code -- your entire catch block -- entirely out of your hot path. It can be put in entirely separate cache lines. Basically ensuring that your non-exceptional code is all as close together and fast as possible.
FWIW, I'd expect my compiler to keep the code after the return statement below out of the "hot path" due to the unconditional return:
// do things here, goto non_hot on error
// error-handler code goes here
void foo () {
return;
non_hot:
}
If for some strange reason you find the above to not work, you can do the same with setjmp()/longjmp() - longjmp() totally fucks up the execution pipeline because it's not in the pipeline.
You can't do this in C. Please prove me wrong! I enjoy learning.
You're welcome ;-)
I would grant that poorly written C++ is probably much worse to detangle than poorly written C. However, well written C++ is just as usable and maintainable as well written C.
And which do you think you are more likely to run into? And which do you think is more likely to be contributed to your project?
It's in daily life which the simpler imperial measure system makes sense.
"Simpler"? Imperial and US Customary units are many things but simpler is not among them. You may be comfortable with them but that is not the same thing.
He has a point - in some areas it is simpler, in others it's harder. When everything is in base twelve you can get many more integer divisors out of it. For example, you can split a dozen people into 2 groups, 3 groups, 4 groups or 6 groups. Hence in some things it's easier to deal with base twelve. If you're allowed to have fractional units then metric is usually better, but it's easier to measure out / parcel out something (whether in cutting wood or baking bread) using a base of twelve, which is what most imperial units are.
You keep saying things as though you are contradicting the guy above you, but you aren't.
The point you are missing is that the GM exec is speaking as if Tesla is *and will remain* a fringe product. It most likely will not remain such, hence the fact that GM is afraid and talking about it.
No he didn't. Did you even read the summary?