you might enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgydTdThoeA

ahhah, thank you

this code appears in the loading screens for the new game "forever winter"

I was wondering if it was from the game or not, so it seems not!

Weirder, every time I see a code snippet on some video, it's the same "struct group_info ...". It is so common that I recognise it every time. I wonder where it is coming from, that makes this snippet so popular?

EDIT: https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:786/format:webp/1*3YdG... from https://towardsdatascience.com/teaching-an-rnn-to-write-code...

The thumbnail to this image says "the source code to the Matrix"... so perhaps the movie had used some Linux code, and everybody is copying the movie

It literally says under the image: code of the matrix (Cloned from Keanu’s GitHub), and links to hackertyper.net

I think it's popular due to hackertyper. If you search for things like "hacker code" on google, hackertyper comes first.

It’s the modern Wilhelm Scream

Similarly, there's no such thing as "an ideal gas"

It's almost as if they suspect everyone else is similarly, a criminal.

We also can't model every single one of the atoms splitting in a nuclear reactor core, but thanks to stats and models, we can predict how they behave to very high precision.

Knowing whether or not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions impact global climate can be reasonably achieved with some modeling assumptions.

We may not be able to predict the weather in each location for the indefinite future, but we certainly can and do understand the general impact of bringing billions of tonnes of new greenhouse gas into a system.

Similarly, “We can’t even model the inside of a proton. How can you possibly know when a pot will boil?”

Turns out you can get pretty far modeling the macro behavior without perfect knowledge of the micro details.

> The fact that there is even a term like "Climate change denial", means that it feasible to deny "the science" (science is about doubt), because the climate scientists actually can't prove anything, fundamentally.

There are people out there denying the shape of the planet, despite that it has been observed directly.

Am I talking about those people?

You're conflating things that are empirically verifiable with things that are not.

I was responding to what you wrote:

> The fact that there is even a term like "Climate change denial", means that it feasible to deny "the science"

This is clearly untrue. Some people, such as the 'flat Earthers', deny plain facts.

Yeah good point, I'll try better

"Psychology can't produce real results because we can't even model a single brain cell perfectly. They only have stats, and stat models."

It's C and Python, not C++

All squares are rectangles I guess.

C can be used in C++ code, no?

It is true that there is C code that is conforming C++ code. However I would say if you’re using a C compiler with with “extern C” in the headers for C++ linker compatibility (as this library does) then saying C++ is about as misleading as saying a Rust library is C++ as you can link to that too.

As far as compatibility and “history” the languages are different enough now. There are both: features in C that do not exist in C++, and code that is conforming C that would be UB in C++. Saying C/C++ (for real) is usually a dumb target when it’s better to pick one and settle with that.

If it’s C, just say so. Everyone knows what extern C is, you don’t need to confuse.

Even Pascal is closer to C than C++ is, yet historically people use this term implying they are very close.

Something very close, but that's not what you would expect for something that markets itself as a C++ library IMHO. Especially in 2024, most people would hope (or assume) that "C++" means "C++ 11" at least.

Definitely doesn't count as _lying_, but still underwhelming.

Yes. And C can also be used with Python and Rust. That does not make this a Rust library.

Right, but C++ started as an extension of C and is mostly compatible and historically you could compile C with the C++ compiler. I don't think it's a good comparison.

Zig can compile C. That makes this C/C++/Zig library. Right? :^)

> historically you could compile C with the C++ compiler.

not any C, only the C++-compatible subset.

    int* foo = malloc(sizeof(int)); 

has never worked in C++ for instance while it's valid C. Code that worked is code that people actually did effort to express in a way compatible with a C++ compiler.

  #ifdef _cplusplus
      #include <iostream>
      #define print() int main(){cout << "Hello world! -- from C++" << endl;}
  #elif (defined __STDC__) || (defined __STDC_VERSION__)
      #include <stdio.h>
      #define print() int main(){printf("Hello world! -- from C\n");}
  #else
  import builtins
  print = lambda : builtins.print("Hello world! -- from Python")
  #endif
  
  print()

Some python code works in C and C++ as well but people don't group them together and call Python/C/C++

You must admit that C/Python doesn't quite have the same cachet as C/C++. C & C++ also share the same name, C++ was born as a derivative of C (with classes), they have the same syntax, logical constructs etc. Python is not even a systems language.

Depends, not all C is C++, eg, there is no (yet) `restrict` keyword in C++ (even if lots of C++ compilers support __restrict__, it's not in the spec)

Not to mention encouraging people to commit crimes...

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

No, it's easy to misunderstand what makes a functional, prosperous economy.

People need to have the capacity to find things.

Today we have the internet, and search engines.

If people want something, they can look.

In this way, all parties consent, otherwise advertisements are harassment.

> People need to have the capacity to find things.

There's a previous step: People need to know that there is such a thing to find.

Some advertising (I'll call it "base" advertising, though there may be a better term) is just information. "Hey, everybody, there's this new thing called a mobile phone!" "Hey, everybody, there's this new disease called AIDS that you really had better alter your behavior to avoid, because it's deadly."

There's a second kind, which I will call "us" advertising: "Hey, everybody, we have the best mobile phones! Available now at WalMart!"

We don't need the second kind, at all. I'm not sure, but I suspect the first kind is at least somewhat useful.

(You can still probably call it harassment, though. Useful, but still harassment.)

You're missing the largest advertising: lifestyle advertising. It's not "hey everybody, we have the best mobile phone", it's "You will be cool, women will want you, success awaits you with our mobile phone".

The second kind is still information though. Where do they sell mobile phones? At the grocers? At the butcher shop? At the dress shop? At the shoe store? If I had a small store that wasn't Walmart, and wanted people to come to my store that sells cellphones, isn't it also informative to know that my store exists and that I sell cellphones? It's only because people already know about Walmart and that it's an everything store that makes your example seem like it's not informative.

> People need to know that there is such a thing to find.

IMO, finding things, also covers not being aware it existed.

Like you're on amazon searching for something, and they suggest something you might also like, they don't know if you knew about it already. That's fine, still both parties consenting.

> In this way, all parties consent, otherwise advertisements are harassment.

ABSOLUTELY this.

Advertisements use MY bandwidth, MY compute resources, MY time, MY space, to harass me by showing me things I have zero interest in, all the while interrupting what I'm doing, distracting me, and then having the gall to tell me "but think of the poor publishers!!".

They have caused the appearance of an industry that's a pox on all ("influencers") who behave like society owes them the space, time, attention and deference that for whatever reason they think they need.

And for a cherry on top, it makes everything more expensive because WE pay for all of it.

I think we agree ;)

Thinking about advertiser bytes on my ethernet cables, makes me feel, compromised. I did not consent. It must end.

Serial experiments Lain

Tbh

Maybe ghost in the shell too, I could see an AI seeking asylum somewhere that will protect it from being lobotomized in the name of corporate brand “safety”.