tropo

Found it:

http://kqueue.org/blog/2013/09/17/cltq/

Also 0% with asthma, obesity, diabetes, etc.

This is true for an isolated rural business.

In other cases, a business benefits from having customers park at neighboring businesses. If parking is provided, it will be taken by customers of other businesses.

Your proposal does not work, at least when making the declarations binary compatible with older code.

Note that C is a pass-by-value language, so passing an array means that the called function can modify the content without the modifications being seen in the caller.

To sort of pass arrays in an ABI-compatible way, the version for older code would require putting the array inside a struct.

Even that doesn't fully work with any ABI that I've ever heard of. The struct doesn't really get passed. Disassemble the code if you have doubts. The caller allocates space for the struct, copies the struct there, and then passes a pointer to the struct. From the high-level view of the language, this is passing the struct, but the low level details are actually wrong.

Those types should not be optional. CHAR_BIT needs to be 8. It is clearly possible to implement the types even on a 6502 or Alpha. From the early days of pre-ANSI C, the language supported types for which the hardware did not have appropriate word sizes. There was a 32-bit long on the 16-bit PDP-11 hardware.

I would go beyond that, requiring all sizes that are a multiple of 8 bits from 8-bit through 512-bit. This better supports cryptographic keys and vector registers.

A horrifying case was multiplication in an x86 emulator. The opcode handler needed to multiply a pair of unsigned 16-bit values, then return a 64-bit result.

The uint16_t got promoted to an int for the multiplication, causing undefined behavior. (if I remember right, the result was assigned to a uint16_t as well, making the intent clear) The compiler then assumed that the 32-bit intermediate couldn't possibly have the sign bit set, so it wouldn't matter if promotion to a 64-bit value had sign extension or zero extension. Depending on the optimization level, the compiler would do one or the other.

This is truly awful behavior. It should not be permitted.

It could be for function pointer type compatibility.

There is an array of pointers, or there is a callback interface, or something like that. The type is set in stone.

C currently replaces my use of an array with a pointer. This sucks, because I'd have taken the address if I wanted that.

Your proposal replaces my use of an array with two things, a pointer (as before) and a length. This is not too helpful, because I already could have done that if I'd wanted to.

What is missing is the ability to pass an array. Sometimes I want to toss a few megabytes on the stack. Don't stop me. I should be able to do that. The called function then has a copy of the original array that it can modify without mangling the original array in the caller.

C has strayed very far from the original intent because compiler authors prioritized benchmark results at the expense of real-world use cases. This bad trend needs to be reversed.

Consider signed integer overflow.

The intent wasn't that the compiler could generate nonsense code if the programmer overflowed an integer. The intent was the the programmer could determine what would happen by reading the hardware manual. You'd wrap around if the hardware naturally would do so. On some other hardware you might get saturation or an exception.

In other words, all modern computers should wrap. That includes x86, ARM, Power, Alpha, Itanium, SPARC, and just about everything else. I don't believe you can even buy non-wrapping hardware with a C99 or newer compiler. Since this is likely to remain true, there is no longer any justification for retaining undefined behavior that is getting abused to the detriment of C users.

This is about gain-of-function research that the USA stopped in 2014 for safety reasons.

Gain-of-function is adding features to viruses. A goal of her research was to add functionality to coronaviruses that could infect humans. With funding stopped in the USA, she moved to Wuhan to continue her work.

The timeline runs for years, right up to December 2019. It includes a SARS coronavirus escape in 2017 that was caused when lab workers failed to properly inactivate the virus before taking it out of the BSL-4 high-containment facility.

Any stay-at-home order which stopped religious services would be found in violation of the US Constitution's first amendment. It's possible a judge would throw out the whole stay-at-home order. To have a stay-at-home order that survives in court, exempting religious services is necessary.

Were you required to remove stars already on the resume? If not, then I know just what to do.

Where on my resume should I put the two stars? Are those the traditional hand-written style, with the lines crossing to make a pentagon in the middle? What sort of pen or pencil should I use?

Perhaps so, but:

The new ventilators might not last. They might be banned due to low quality after the emergency passes. Some will be damaged by use. Parts might become unavailable.

New companies may enter the ventilator business. We still have the ventilator business, even if the companies change.

The demand might remain high. The disease could stick around. This isn't the first respiratory disease to start spreading right next to a Chinese biohazard lab, and likely won't be the last.

The equipment is excellent for the other diseases it can test for. I think the numbers I saw earlier today were 95% sure for negative and well over 99% sure for positive, but I can't find that source back anymore. Numbers for this specific virus would be poorly understood, but ought to be similar to the numbers for other viruses.

Car manufacturers would be really effective, though far from efficient. Under our current conditions, it makes sense to use car manufacturers.

Car manufacturers rework and reuse things all the time. There are always new models coming out, mainly to look different from previous models. Lots of parts get repurposed, being used for very different vehicles. Lots of parts get redesigned each year, often for small improvements.

Car manufacturers also have great small-volume production for engineering prototypes. It isn't as cheap as normal production, but it can be put to use immediately.

Lots of reasons:

There is a difference between "seems obviously correct" and "proven well enough to avoid a lawsuit".

China exerts control over American media companies. Ones that don't play ball get banned in China. Remember that these companies are usually involved in many businesses, including the sale of movies to China's large population. Everybody is afraid to upset China.

Even the publisher of Nature has ditched about 1000 articles that were upsetting to the Chinese government.

Much of the US media is strongly in opposition to the US president. (They even stopped airing his virus updates, despite good ratings, because it was making him look good.) There is no desire to spread any news that could support his opposition to China.

By "edits", you seems to be referring to something else. I think you mean something like CRISPR Cas9.

That is a straw man. I'm definitely not claiming that any such technology was used. The virus modifications in the Wuhan lab are older than the existence of most of that technology.

We didn't need modern technology to create the dog from the wolf. It's the same here, with viruses.

Breeding viruses in a lab is not detectable compared to what happens in nature.

Private healthcare providers in the USA are not like that. The hospitals are normally glad to accept your money in exchange for treatment. You can go elsewhere if you wish. If your insurance company denies payment, you can find some other way to pay.

Canada prohibits the existence of private healthcare providers. The only reason people aren't condemned to die on waiting lists is that nearly all Canadians can easily travel to the USA when they are desperate for treatment. Canada saves money because people are using their own funds to purchase treatment in the USA.

The UK will actually prohibit people from seeking care in other countries. I guess it would be an embarrassment if you got care elsewhere, so instead you must die.

There, that's two developed countries. I don't wish to research every damn country in the world, and you said "free to pick any developed country to compare to - it won't matter". I picked them because they are English-speaking and relatively large.

I'm not interested in generic "better outcomes and lower expenditures". That just means that everybody gets substandard ("cost effective") care. I want to live in a country where a person over the age of 80 can get an expensive treatment to improve quality of life. I know a person who did: first about $80,000 in drugs for hepatitis, then a hip replacement. Neither would happen in a country with socialized healthcare because she wouldn't be worth the money. They'd estimate something like "quality adjusted years of life", determine the value is low, and give her some pain pills.

We know, from published scientific research in well-respected journals, that "guided evolution in a Wuhan lab somewhere" has been happening for many years.

We also know that China has previously had several terrifying biocontainment failures with virus labs. Things got out, including coronaviruses, but were stopped before spreading far and wide.

By the way, the very original conspiracy theory was eventually proven correct. Calling it a conspiracy theory was a great way to mock people who were pointing out the truth.

Nah, see my comment above. Those links only tell us that we did not find evidence of the use modern gene-editing technology in the virus. It's misdirection with a straw man.

The lab was breeding viruses the old-fashioned way long before modern gene-editing technology was invented. Bat coronaviruses would be mixed with other viruses and repeatedly passed through human cells. That leaves no evidence in the genome. It looks just like natural selection.

The virus labs in China have had several other dangerous accidents that let viruses get out. Those previous accidents were gotten under control. With this one, we weren't so lucky. I think the lesson is clear: don't screw around making deadly viruses when your biohazard containment is substandard. Maybe just don't attempt it under any conditions.

That article is misdirection. It says that we have not been able to find anything in the genome that proves modern gene editing technology was used.

Well, so what? People aren't generally making that claim. The only thing disproven is a straw man.

Nothing in the article rules out the possibility of a lab creating the virus via conventional breeding, by passing the virus through human cells and/or by infecting cells simultaneously with human viruses. Nothing in the article rules out the possibility of a lab accident; indeed there have been several lab accidents in China that released dangerous viruses.

Look at this research:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18077725

It is 2008 research from the lab in Wuhan. They created a virus by combining SARS-CoV with HIV, targeting the human ACE2 molecule as receptor. These features match those of our current pandemic. (India reported the HIV link, and the use of ACE2 is widely known)

We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility. Note also that China is actively trying to point people away from this line of inquiry. We should resist that effort.

It's worth remembering that the very term "conspiracy theory" was first used to deflect attention from an actual conspiracy. It was a very successful psy-op, and it lives on to this day.

That says very little. It says that we have not been able to find anything in the genome that proves modern gene editing technology was used.

Well, so what? People aren't generally making that claim. It's a straw man.

Nothing in your article rules out the possibility of a lab creating the virus via conventional breeding, by passing the virus through human cells and/or by infecting cells simultaneously with human viruses. Nothing in your article rules out the possibility of a lab accident; indeed there have been several lab accidents in China that released dangerous viruses.

Look at this research:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18077725

It is 2008 research from the lab in Wuhan. They created a virus by combining SARS-CoV with HIV, targeting the human ACE2 molecule as receptor. These features match those of our current pandemic. (India reported the HIV link, and the use of ACE2 is widely known)

We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility. Note also that China is actively trying to point people away from this line of inquiry. We should resist that effort.

The only thing untrue is that we'd officially call them something else. You don't have "death panels" if you call them "community wellness committees".

There is no economy anywhere in the world that can support an infinite demand for healthcare. We keep inventing new healthcare too, so it only gets worse. There will be limits to healthcare, though we can lie to ourselves about that.

If we don't place a price on life, then 100% of our money goes to healthcare and then we still end up dead in the end.

With socialised healthcare, the politically viable solution is to promise more than can be delivered. This causes waiting lists. Waiting lists for "free" (tax funded) care will grow as long as demand exceeds supply. The supply is limited by resources. The demand is only limited because people die while waiting for treatment.

There is a huge opportunity for corruption and bias here. Instead of a simple waiting list, we can move people ahead if they are politically favored.

It's all simpler and less corrupt if we let market prices sort out how we wish to prioritize the care of one person, the care of another person, and all the other possible economic activity.

I got through the hazing ritual, so that works great for me personally. There is far less competition for my job.

For the benefit of society, or the country, or the world, or something like that... the situation is terrible. We're wasting years of human lives on unproductive education. We're excluding capable people from CS careers. We're driving up the cost of software.

If we trimmed out the non-CS stuff, people could do combined BS+MS degrees in the time that we currently spend on BS degrees. The extra CS education would be valuable to the people and to their employers.

People hit calculus, which is almost never needed in the job market, and they give up.

Lots of math and hard science is in the major. It's not an alternative to the humanities and liberal arts and languages. It's done in addition, which just isn't fair at all. Students take two or three semesters of calculus-based physics, three semesters of calculus, two semesters of discrete math, engineering statistics, linear algebra, differential equations, and often even more science.

A person majoring in education could skip all that, even if intending to be a math or science teacher.

It's easy if we are willing to cut red tape and willing to prioritize people over pets. Veterinarians need almost no training to do the job. Test runs done for emergency preparation have proven that veterinarians do a better job than all medical professionals who aren't already specialized in respiratory care.

If a place makes plastic parts of similar size, switching just means changing out the dies/molds that form the plastic. Auto part suppliers, often not the actual auto companies, should have no problem with this.

Legal standards vary. In most of the USA, he probably could be shot.

In nearly all of the USA, he could be shot if he were in the victim's home. Most states do not have a duty to flee when in the home, and the attacker's continued presence is considered a threat. Only in Vermont and Washington, D.C. is there a duty to attempt to flee when in the home.

Outside the home, in most states he probably could be shot, at least if he weren't clearly departing. He can't just stay there being a threat. There is no duty for the victim to attempt to flee, even if outside the home.

An interesting case involves a purse snatcher in a Texas parking lot. A bystander pulled out a huge revolver with a laser sight, fired, and killed the purse snatcher to recover the purse. It was legal.

That depends on where you live. In many places, the law doesn't punish victims for self-defense. You certainly can kill a person who is attacking you. In a few places, notably Texas, it is legal to kill a person to stop a theft or to recover stolen property, as long as there is no non-lethal way to do so.