Shame you only made an account 5 hours ago. I was looking forward to reading some shitpost takes.

Don’t forget snaps! Fuck snaps and snapd. Furthermore, fuck automatically installing the snap when I try to install software through apt.

What’s next, schools? Oh, wait. Well, surely not public infra—nevermind. At least kids are safe? No? All right then.

More or less, minus the CGI.

I need to try with my user agent set to a Chromebook. Maybe I’ll even get a discount.

Because a subset of people are and always will be idiots. Remember: some people think unions exist to steal your money, socialism is communist dictatorship propaganda, and privatization of government services is good for everybody.

Obligatory fuck Nintendo, but I also blame the selfish dumbfucks who keep posting videos of themselves playing unreleased games on YouTube and Reddit. If you want nice things contingent on having software which exists in a legal gray area, don’t openly poke the litigious hornets’ nest.

From a theoretical point of view, emulators of modern consoles may actually be illegal. Under the DMCA, emulation for preservation is protected as a periodically-renewed exemption list defined by the library of congress. But, (paraphrasing) “creating or distributing any hardware or software device—or component of such—designed to circumvent DRM technology” is still illegal irrespective of any exemptions. A reasonable (and bullshit) interpretation of that means that any emulator which is capable of bypassing any DRM features (such as decrypting ROM using user-provided keys) is a violation under the act.

I say theoretical because it hasn’t ever actually been tested in a court. Nintendo v. Tropic Haze LLC nearly gave us the answer, but the latter chose to settle instead.

If you’re using a decent development system, you’ll have an executable called diff installed already :)

“We have thoroughly investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing. On an unrelated note, is anybody willing to sell us some more white phosphorus?”

Because people are technologically inept and buy into the propaganda that kernel-level anticheat is more effective than the alternative solutions.

It’s not the Chromium team. Google could have added JPEG XL to Android, but that’s been stalled for nearly two years with zero explanation as for why.

The whole thing smells of managerial interference somewhere.

Interestingly, the reference implementation libjxl appears to be a Google project. They’re all over the patents file and CLA.

If Mozilla isn’t merely being hopeful about having the same team create a Rust implementation, that might actually mean there’s internal interest within Google. Assuming they pull it off, the bullshit reason for refusing to add JPEG XL to Chromium might finally stop being a blocker.

Google created the original reference implementation, libjxl. It’s not stupid that they would prefer a Rust rewrite be created by the same team.

https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl

And yet, some people vehemently refute that it’s a genocide…

That’s not the point, though. The point is to use a nominal type that asserts an invariant and make it impossible to create an instance of said type which violates the invariant.

Both validation functions and refinement types put the onus on the caller to ensure they’re not passing invalid data around, but only refinement types can guarantee it. Humans are fallible, and it’s easy to accidentally forget to put a check_if_valid() function somewhere or assume that some function earlier in the call stack did it for you.

With smart constructors and refinement types, the developer literally can’t pass an unvalidated type downstream by accident.

You’re going to need to cite that.

I’m not familiar with C23 or many of the compiler-specific extensions, but in all the previous versions I worked with, there is no type visibility other than “fully exposed” or opaque and dangerous (void*).

You could try wrapping your Foo in

typedef struct {
    Foo validated
} ValidFoo;

But nothing stops someone from being an idiot about it and constructing it by hand:

ValidFoo trustMeBro;
trustMeBro.validated = someFoo;
otherFunction(trustMeBro);

Or even just casting it.

Foo* someFoo;
otherFunction((ValidFoo*) someFoo);

If it were poorly designed and used exceptions, yes. The correct way to design smart constructors is to not actually use a constructor directly but instead use a static method that forces the caller to handle both cases (or explicitly ignore the failure case). The static method would have a return type that either indicates “success and here’s the refined type” or “error and this is why.”

In Rust terminology, that would be a Result<T, Error>.

For Go, it would be (*RefinedType, error) (where dereferencing the first value without checking it would be at your own peril).

C++ would look similar to Rust, but it doesn’t come as part of the standard library last I checked.

C doesn’t have the language-level features to be able to do this. You can’t make a refined type that’s accessible as a type without also making it impossible to construct arbitrarily.

Unless you’re a functional programming purist or coming from a systems programming background, it takes a lot longer than a few days to get used to the borrow checker. If you’re coming as someone who most often uses garbage-collected languages, it’s even worse.

The problem isn’t so much understanding what the compiler is bitching about, as it is understanding why the paradigm you used isn’t safe and learning how to structure your code differently. That part takes the longest and only really starts to become easier when you learn to stop fighting the language.