I don't care. If the web becomes largely paywalled as a result I'll just stop visiting those sites and stick to the still free ones. Or there's other things to do with one's time, if you cast your mind back 10 or so years before everyone became glued to their phones.

Quite. It's like I've wondered into the Large Print section of the library. What's wrong with normal sized fonts, and letting the minority with impaired eyesight or curious hardware resize as desired? Or maybe browsers could expose some standard config info to sites saying "yeah, extra normal for me please"? I could use reader mode for everything, except it breaks some sites.

Do you mean you worked on the case, or just that you read about it on the internet?

"I cannot imagine how it can be a good idea to reject the internet. Avoid social media all you want, but choosing not to have a search engine, dictionaries, encyclopedias, maps and so on at your fingertips is just bonkers.

But we had all that growing up 40 years ago. The internet has made people stupider, as a culture. People learn less because you can just look it up. Yes, you can. It's much easier to look stuff up, but that means people are retaining less themselves.

> It's much easier to look stuff up, but that means people are retaining less themselves.

It might be easier, but it's not easy. I see people giving up on searches because they are not able to formulate what they are looking for. Maybe that opens a whole different set of problems.

> I see people giving up on searches because they are not able to formulate what they are looking for

In fairness, a number of things I've read about here on HN and experiences have led me to believe the quality of search engine results has declined as well

> How many "error's"

It starts with grocer's apostrophes, but before long everyone's splitting infinitives.

Damn I should have googled that one.

No, reviews aren't important. Whether it's apps, books, movies or music, trusting a review only makes sense if you value the reviewer and I don't know if you've read reviews of Android apps but it's the same morons who are posting on YouTube, Reddit etc. Thanks but I'll decide what to install via other means.

There are morons everywhere, but humans are generally correct in the aggregate. See examples here: https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-wisdom-of-cro...

Just slap a captcha on there or something or avoid bots

I'm a bit puzzled how you've ended up with a system where you can't access email remotely. That probably took a lot more time than just creating a gmail account or even using your own domain but hooking it up to google for all the boring stuff (like, uh, making it available remotely). Although you mention "private" email so perhaps you also have "public" email which you can access - i'm not sure how I'd configure mail servers to deal with that. Back when I wasn't confident accessing email via random internet cafes etc from my phone I created several accounts and have stuck to that system; some accounts i only access when i'm sure it's safe, and others - not used for banking etc - i couldn't care less about and use from anywhere.

My phone sucks (Nokia 8110 4G, where mail conked after the first software upgrade) and working for a bank, which disallows external messaging for regulatory reasons.

"I generally think of "int" as also an adjective, with both "const" and "int" describing the variable."

Eh? int is a noun, surely? How does int describe an int?

I can imagine cost and long being adjectives for the noun int.

You tend to get warnings to use the _s versions of some functions (strcpy_s in this case) these days.

I just tried (with gcc 9.2.1), and got no warning. As far as I know, these _s versions aren't that good, and often aren't available at all; see http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm which says among other things

"[...] none of the popular Open Source distribution such as BSD or Linux has chosen to make either available to their users. At least one (GNU C Library) has repeatedly rejected proposals for inclusion [...]"

"[...] As a result of the numerous deviations from the specification the Microsoft implementation cannot be considered conforming or portable."

"often aren't available at all"

It's in C11. Perhaps Red Hat use non-compliant compilers, or very, very old ones?

It's an optional part of C11, which means that even a fully compliant compiler does not have to implement them.

strcpy_s has no manual entry on Ubuntu, while "man strcpy" and "man strncpy" work as expected.

Why would that be?