Christianity opposes abortion in accord with the prohibition of murder, what with science informing us that human life begins at conception and our consciences, and God's moral law recorded in good book that murder i wrong.
I notice you use the word choice and classify the pro-life position s "anti-choice" which makes it seem like a bad thing. However the "choice we are talking about here is directly and intentionlly causing death to an innocent human being. I think it is very important to understnd that.
To borrow an atheist trope, you and I agree that murder is evil and immoral in most cases. I just think it's wrong in one more case, when the victims are yet unborn too (I reckon murder is intrinsically evil and immoral)
> what with science informing us that human life begins at conception
No. Science can't say when life begins any more then it can say how much sand is needed to make a heap. Because it's a question of how we choose to define things, not a question of objective fact.
(And fyi... since what makes humans special is our rather absurd level of ability to think and learn things, human life begins with the ability to form long-term memories. Which is well past the end of infancy. This may seen counterintuitive, but there's a sound scientific basis for it.)
> Christianity opposes abortion in accord with the prohibition of murder
Which christians are you referring to? Plenty of christians disagree with you and will tell you it's a complicated issue with no black and white answer. There isn't even a completely agreed-upon definition of what a christian is[1].
I think it would be pretty nice to be able to use the keyboard to navigate the UI (left/right arrow keys to "orbit the content", up/down to "zoom").
Using a pointer, I'd prefer to just be able to click on the oval to zoom into, maybe double-click to zoom back out a level, use the back button to go to the place I came from.
He’s stated that he doesn’t think open source helps produce high quality software and attracts a bunch of people that are less interested in building software and more interested in building policy.
However, he’s stated many times that he will release his language compiler and modules openly when they are ready and that he believes he’ll have to open-source it at some point if he wants broad adoption.
There are many rant videos available online - but in general the core of his software philosophy is based in minimal, clean, extremely optimized code. Open-source rarely results in any of those things. Jon is the last guy wandering in the desert, still devoted to concise code - I love him for it.
I can't find `timegm` neither in the C99 standard draft nor in POSIX.1-2024.
The first sentence of your link reads:
>The C/Unix time- and date-handling API is a confusing jungle full of the corpses of failed experiments and various other traps for the unwary, many of them resulting from design decisions that may have been defensible when the originals were written but appear at best puzzling today.
timegm was finally standardized by C23, and POSIX-2024 mentions it in the FUTURE DIRECTIONS section of mktime. I don't know precisely what happened with POSIX. I think timegm got lost in the shuffle and by the time Austin Group attention turned back to it, it made more sense to let C23 pick it up first so there were no accidental conflicts in specification.[1]
[1] POSIX-2024 incorporates C17, not C23, but in practice the typical POSIX environment going forward will likely be targeting POSIX-2024 + C23, or just POSIX-2024 + extensions; and hopefully neither POSIX nor C will wait as long between standard updates as previously.
Yeah, you're correct that `timegm` is neither part of the C99 standard nor officially specified in POSIX.1-2024 but it is widely supported in practice on many platforms, including glibc, musl, and BSD systems which makes it a pragmatic choice in environments where it is available. Additionally, it is easy to implement it in a portable way when unavailable.
So, while `timegm` is not standardized in C99 or POSIX, it is a practical solution in most real-world environments, and alternatives exist for portability, and thus: handling time in C is not inherently a struggle.
As for the link, it says "You may want to bite the bullet and use timegm(3), even though it’s nominally not portable.", but see what I wrote above.
Here is some of my code that works around not having timegm. It is detected in a configure script, so there's a #define symbol indicating whether it's available.
m4conf obviously has messy configure scripts; they are just written in m4. For instance, it somes with a 120 kilobyte file m4sugar which is fully of m4 cruft.
Oh look, m4sugar.m4 is taken from GNU Autoconf and is GPLv3. The. m4conf project's master license doesn't mention this; it's a "BSD1" type license (like BSD2, but with no requirement for the copyright notice to appear in documentation or accompanying materials). Oops!
m4sugar says that it requires GNU m4, not just any POSIX m4.
I wrote the configure script in shell because that's what I decided I can depend on being present in the target systems. I deliberately rejected any approach involving m4 to show that a GNU style configure script can be obtained in as straightforward way, without convoluted metaprogramming.
There is a lot of copy-paste programming in my configure script, but it doesn't have to be that way; a script of this type can be better organized than my example. Anyway, you're not significantly disadvantaged writing in shell compared to m4, especially if you're mostly interested in probing the environment, not complex text generation.
I don't think that it's enough to test for header files being present. Almost all my tests target library features: including a header, calling some functions and actually linking a program. The contents of headers vary from system to system and with compiler options.
While m4sugar is from GNU Autoconf (which is GPLv3), it's properly listed as a dependency and ISC is GPL-compatible, so there's no licensing issue that I know of. The code explicitly seems to avoid GNU m4-specific features for BSD compatibility, and it goes well beyond header-only testing. While shell scripting is a valid approach, m4conf provides structured macros for maintainable configuration and advanced features like runtime CPU capability detection. As far as I can tell, the code is well-documented and organized, though you raise fair points about the tradeoffs between shell and m4 approaches, but as others have mentioned it (and seen in example m4 file), it is extremely simple to use and works with third-party libraries as well.
m4conf is not using anything requiring GNU stuff though, and it has been tested with BSD m4 as well. It is noted in base.m4.
The license of m4conf itself is ISC.
m4sugar could be vetted so it is can become less than 120 KB.
I don't know if it is messy, look at the example configuration file. For me, it is more straightforward and less bloated than autotools, for example.
> I don't think that it's enough to test for header files being present. Almost all my tests target library features: including a header, calling some functions and actually linking a program. The contents of headers vary from system to system and with compiler options.
While the situation with tracking in the West is awful, there's a huge difference between having a choice, however impractical, and being spied on in secret.
Why is that? Can you provide a source? (Not distrusting you, but it would be great to have a source because I'm a writer and interested in writing about these things.)
It's the law. You can't pay in cash for anything above three thousand euros. If you're a company the limit is even lower at 1000 Euros. Interesting though that a foreigner, such as a tourist, can pay up to 10 thousand euros in cash as long it's not a business transaction.
My entire point was that we don't really have a choice -- for example, most people do not have a choice to own a phone any more. It's a practically mandatory sort of technology. So, we don't really have a choice here either, only the illusion of one.
It's also not just your phone. People seem to have forgotten about things like PRISM [1] because it's no longer in the news, but it's still very much around and likely only more extensive. The surveillance state extends far beyond just phones.
Yet these articles, from well known organisations, extensively investigating (even featuring 0 day revelations) the decline of civil society in lieu of ever more pervasive surveillance and manipulation of opinion, only seem to ever focus on geopolitical adversaries of the US.
The Catholic Church teaches that we cannot do evil so that good may come out of it. It cannot be the means as in abortion. It could only be tolerated as an undesirable consequence of a good act such as self-defense. But unless one is in immediate danger from the agressor, I do not see how one can use deadly force. Whether the partisan action is legitimate self-defense I cannot say, I didn't actually look into this, but the disposition of treating whst you believe is a sin as a good essentially, and hoping for forgiveness without repentance, that is evil.
Bonhoeffer wasn't roman catholic and neither am I. He wasn't hoping for forgiveness without repentance. He was expecting, knowing that he would need to repent for something but not able to determine the correct course. He chose to trust in god's mercy, and the forgiveness of the people hurt by his actions.
Copied from my other comment so you see it:
Contemporary Theology Understander: We cannot do evil so that good may come of it ... that is evil.
Big Brother D, unable to escape the conclusion that he must kill nazis: Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner.
Might be a good idea to record clicks that have no associated action. If you could display all of such clicks visually, the problem might become obvious.
The problem with that is that users (1) often click at random or for stupid reasons (I was shocked when one user contacted me to complain about my site acting poorly when they clicked on random empty whitespace - they said they just did that compulsively as a habit, like fidgeting), and (2) users learn to not click on these sorts of papercuts via operant conditioning. Like the OP's example is something that his users would learn not to do, and so it would disappear from the statistics. It's not obvious to me that it would emerge out of the sea of misclicks and bots and random fidgeting clicks. Are you going to review a vast list of logged null clicks (and of course, lots of these papercuts will be for clicks that do have actions - the wrong action) regularly? Realistically, no. You probably aren't even reviewing your site's 404s or making sure all links work.
It matters for integrity. They promised 100% free forever. But anyway, death and betrayal aren't necessarily the only options. As others have suggested, they can try soliciting donations more forcefully.
If that doesn't work, they could introduce premium features. Stuff that obviously has to cost money would make the pill easier to swallow, for example, features that depends on third party services (only LLMs come to mind right now), or human assistance (real-life instructors). Admittedly, this would be a compromise. One could argue it fails on the 100% part, but another could argue that 100% of existing features remain free.
I notice you use the word choice and classify the pro-life position s "anti-choice" which makes it seem like a bad thing. However the "choice we are talking about here is directly and intentionlly causing death to an innocent human being. I think it is very important to understnd that.
To borrow an atheist trope, you and I agree that murder is evil and immoral in most cases. I just think it's wrong in one more case, when the victims are yet unborn too (I reckon murder is intrinsically evil and immoral)