C++ is std::__cxx11::list<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0>, std::allocator<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0> > >::erase(std::_List_const_iterator<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0> >) /usr/include/c++/12/bits/list.tcc:158

your underflow error is someone’s underflow feature (hopefully with -fwrapv)

how did I miss that…

also a fun fact, while commercial aviation is very safe, private planes are much more dangerous, being almost as dangerous per mile as a regular car (and you get a lot more miles per hour of travel)

that works for 2 word names eg is_open or is_file, but in this case is_dialog_file_open is structured like a question, while dialog_file_is_open is structured like a statement

for a large project, you can probably look at the history of issues, if there are lots of issues that are 5 years old, it’s almost certainly legit

All 9k stars, 10k PRs, 400 forks & professional web site are fake?

Technically, it is entirely possible to find a real existing project, make a carbon copy of the website (there are automated tools to accomplish this), then have a massive amount of bots give 9K stars and make a lot of PRs, issues and forks (bonus points if these are also copies of actual existing issues/PRs) and generate a fake commit history (this should be entirely possible with git), a bunch of releases could be quickly generated too. Though you would probably be able to notice pretty quickly that timestamps don’t match since I don’t think github features like issues can have fake timestamps (unlike git)

though I don’t think this has ever actually been done, there are services that claim to sell not only stars but issues, pull requests and forks too. Though assuming the service is not just a scam in itself, any cursory look at the contents of the issues etc would probably give away that they are AI generated

as many iterations as it takes

void* x = &x;
char* ptr = (char*)&x;

while (1) {
    printf("%d\n", (unsigned int)*ptr);
    ptr--;
}

looks like work on the android client started in 2011 (or at least, that’s when it seemingly started using version control)

the app was released in 2014

so it has likely inherited decisions from ~14 years ago, I’d guess there is a several year gap where having a native desktop app was not even a concern

Also the smartphone landscape was totally different back then, QT’s android support back then was in alpha (or totally nonexistent if the signal project is a bit older than the github repository makes it seem), and the average smartphone had extremely weak processing power and a tiny screen resolution by today’s standards. Making the same gui function on both desktop and mobile was probably a pretty ridiculous proposition.

what’s wrong with them? are you sure it’s just not set to use 100% of all cores, and then the OS does some shuffling?

the “will linearly speedup anything [to the amount of parallel computation available]” claim is so stupid that I think it’s more likely they meant “only has a linear slowdown compared to a basic manual parallel implementation of the same algorithm”

Considering this was written in 2001, I’m not all that worried

slow inverse square root:

float slowinvsqrt(float x)
{
    const long accuracy = 100000000;    // larger number = better accuracy
    if (x <= 0.0f) {
        return NAN;
    }
    if (x == 1.0f) {
        return 1.0f;
    }
    if (x < 1.0f) {
        return 1.0f / slowinvsqrt(1.0f/x);
    }

    int max_power = log(accuracy) / log(x);
    long pow1 = pow(x, max_power - 1);
    long pow2 = pow(x, max_power);
    double current = 1.0;
    double previous = 1.0;

    for (long i = 0; i<10*accuracy; i++) {
        current = sin(current);
        if (i == pow1) {
            previous = current;
        }
        if (i == pow2) {
            return current / previous;
        }
    }
}

I’d think game journalism has been mostly replaced by youtube reviewers / video essays, no?

steam’s drm is a complete joke though? Tons of game developers add their own drm on top because it is so trivial to bypass steam’s own.

Their main product is a marketplace/content delivery system

even if you write in assembly, you still may not actually understand what is going on in the machine since processors convert the instructions to “micro-ops”, and let’s not forget hardware bugs like those caused by speculative execution

Is there something I should be keeping an eye out for, or preparing for so everything goes smoothly at least with regards to this community?

On the 6th of May, 2028, travel to 2 Augusta Hills Drive, Bakersfield, Kern County, California, United States. At exactly 4 PM local time, place an orange traffic cone on top of the nearest garbage can and await further instructions.

ironically suyu is still up on github

and of course ryujinx hasn’t received any legal threats yet

Youtube actually uses 128kbps opus, which should be significantly better than 160kbps mp3

but the real problem is that you can’t know what quality the uploader used, it all gets recompressed by youtube.

They could do it without recompilation, but something like changing the obfuscation and recompiling for every copy would likely make it much harder to get rid of the watermarks even if you can compare several different copies

(though they could also have multiple watermarked sections so that any group of for example 3 copies would have some section that is identical, but still watermarked and would uniquely identify all three leakers. The amount of data you need the watermarks to contain goes up exponentially with the amount of distinct copies, but if you have say 1000 review copies and want to be resistant to 4 copies being “merged”, you only need to distinguish between 1000^4 combinations so you can theoretically get away with a watermark that only contains about 40 bits of data )