Haven’t you heard that linux is a scary communist terrorist hacker OS?

It’s a monoid in the category of endofunctors. Obviously.

Aww a whole new generation of devs get to make the same mistakes SOAP made. Makes me feel all fuzzy inside.

Check out distros like Pop!_OS or Nobara. Linux gaming has come a long way recently due to Valve going all in on linux for the Steam Deck. Frankly even just the standard mainline distros aren’t terrible for gaming these days tbh.

Do people not read compiler errors or something? Finding missing semicolons is easy.

)

Sure but who’s got time for all that aggravation? Especially if it’s not part of the codebase I have to work with personally. LGTM and let it be someone else’s problem.

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/386194/why-do-we-still-grow-the-stack-backwards

TL;DR: For historical reasons stacks growing down is defined in hardware on some CPUs (notably x86). On other CPUs like some ARM chips for example you (or more likely your compiler’s developer) can technically choose which direction stacks go but not conforming to the historical standard is the choice of a madman.

Gotta love Microsoft Power Bisexual

True programming chads don’t index at all, they just bind functions to the list monad.

git rebase -i

“Fixed stuff”
…
“Fixed for real this time”

One mistake and you have to maintain it for 18 years…

And then a user starts adding weights to the label until it passes.

With man-on-man you’re at least consenting to get fucked and they generally use lube.

I’m not sure how to break this to you but this is just an internet forum, not a court of law

I’m waiting for the post mortem before declaring this to not be anything to do with MS tbh. It’s only affecting windows systems and it wouldn’t be the first time dumb architectural decisions on their part have caused issues (why not run the whole GUI in kernel space? What’s the worst that could happen?)

He doesn’t exactly come across as happy…

This is why I always rename all the variables in the project on each PR.

It’s always true for sufficiently large values of “a few”