I can read a trashy romance novel on a bus. But if I crack open a skin mag, I am a weirdo.

So which is the lesser?

Actually… false comparison. They make skin mags featuring men too.

So let’s try this:

Woman reading a romance book. Vs a man reading a romance book.

One of those is “weird”.

I don't think either of those would typically be seen as weird? It's certainly less common, but I think the people most likely to find it weird would be those who would think women reading trashy romance novels is weird too.

Your comment has real "a man wears a schoolgirl outfit and a woman wears a schoolgirl outfit, but society doesn't like one - checkmate feminists" logic to it.

The idea you'd start with comparing porn to a book says enough about how honestly you're coming to this conversation and where your starting point was for what romance novels even are.

Maybe he should ride on the Artemis II mission?

Strapped to one of the boosters?

Knowing if an AI contributed is good data. The human is still responsible for the content of the PR.

While code is good or not, evaluating it is a bit of a subjective exercise. We like to think we are infallible code evaluating machines. But the truth is, we make mistakes. And we also shortcut. So knowing who made the commit, and if they used AI can help us evaluate the code more effectively.

Disagreed. The default in iOS is to inject. The opt out procedure is to change your signature.

But people who own the shared spaces might be high on the list.

The poorer will get robotics as a condiment. Like WiFi.

Users used their freedom to choose macOS. Gatekeeper is a desirable feature. They opted-in with their purchase.

Speak for yourself, I used my freedom to disable it.

I hear what you are saying. But hear me out. I think their comment is ok.

No one is forced to follow that thread. And the comment does provide additional information.

In fact, I never considered circumcision a form a gender mutilation. Despite being circumcised. But that comment got me thinking about it in a new way. And thinking about GM in a larger context.

Input.

You are passing in a memory location that can be read or written too.

That’s it.

In terms of contract in a function, you might be passing the pointer to the function so that the function can write to the provided pointer address. Input/output isn't specifying calling convention (there's fastcall for that) - it is specifying the intent of the function. Otherwise every single parameter to a function would be an input because the function takes it and uses it...

I worked on a massive codebase where we used Microsoft SAL to annotate all parameters to specify intent. The compiler could throw errors based on these annotations to indicate misuse.

This seems like an extension of that.

Annotation sounds good. (As long as it is enforced or honored.) which is the best you can do in C++.

A language like C# has true directional parameters. C only truly has “input”

No. Neither in the language (NULL exists) nor necessarily on real CPUs.

NULL exists on real CPUs. Maybe you meant nullptr which is a very different thing, don't confuse the two.

I don't agree. Null is an artefact of the type system and the type system evaporates at runtime. Even C's NULL macro just expands to zero which is defined in the type system as the null pointer.

Address zero exists in the CPU, but that's not the null pointer, that's an embarrassment if you happen to need to talk about address zero in a language where that has the same spelling as a null pointer because you can't say what you meant.

Null doesn't expand to zero on some weird systems. tese days zero is special on most hardware so having zero and nullptr be the same is importnt - even though on some of them zero is also legal.

Historically C's null pointer literal, provided as the pre-processor constant NULL, is the integer literal 0 (optionally cast to a void pointer in newer standards) even though the hardware representation may not be the zero address.

It's OK that you didn't know this if you mostly write C++ and somewhat OK that you didn't know this even if you mostly write C but stick to pre-defined stuff like that NULL constant, if you write important tools in or for C this was a pretty important gap in your understanding.

In C23 the committee gave C the C++ nullptr constant, and the associated nullptr_t type, and basically rewrote history to make this entire mess, in reality the fault of C++ now "because it's for compatibility with C". This is a pretty routine outcome, you can see that WG14 members who are sick of this tend to just walk away from the committee because fighting it is largely futile and they could just retire and write in C89 or even K&R C without thinking about Bjarne at all.

You can point to a register which is certainly not memory.

In the original article there are some blue underlined words. “California” is one of them. If you click it, you will get a nifty video answer to your question.