Why $6,2999 when the article says he payed around $900?

> Why $6,2999 when the article says he payed around $900?

In the fifth paragraph:

“Admittedly, it did not cost me the $6300 from the article's title, much closer to $900. Nonetheless, everything I'm describing translates to every other Canon camera model!”

He discovered this information about his $900 camera but has found that it also applies to other models, likely the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III.

Because it gets more clicks.

> The safety checks have uncovered over 1,000 bugs

In most implementations of the standard library, safety checks can be enabled with a simple #define. In some, it's the default behavior in DEBUG mode. I wonder what this library improves on that and why these bugs have not been discovered before.

Being actually enforced, even in release.

Most folks don't use those #defines, and many still haven't leaned about them.

It's a great question (_LIBCPP_DEBUG was already a thing in libc++), and AFAIK the answer is supposedly "it used to be too costly to enable these in production with libc++, and it no longer is." I have no first-hand insight as to how accurate this perception is.

That's exactly right. We've had extra hardening enabled in tests, and that does catch many issues. But tests can't exercise every potential out-of-bounds issue, which is why enabling it prod enabled us to find & fix additional issues.

They turned those on and 1. checked that the software using it didn't break and 2. made sure it didn't tank performance.

Source: I worked on this apparently

The chats are encrypted but the backup saved in the cloud isn't. So if someone gets access to your Google Drive he can read your WhatsApp chats. You can opt-in to encrypt the backup but it doesn't work well.

Oops, he did it again. Congrats Raph, and thanks - your work and your writing have been an inspiration to me for my entire career (~25 years).