namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
@pleb@hunk.city If you care about optimization you enable optimization
https://godbolt.org/z/TKdGv3ezv
so only difference is that can't pass const & in register across translation units, but if inlined there will be no difference, and LTO might fix it as well.
If you want to test for more complex classes, write one that counts constructions and run it with optimizations. A single instance will need to be constructed in both cases, but everything else the compiler can elide.
what's the difference between
template<typename T>
auto add1(const T& a, const T& b)
{ return a + b; }
and
template<typename T>
auto add2(T a, const T& b)
{ return a += b; }
?
@mew27 absolute genius!
https://git.sr.ht/~namark/libsimple_support/tree/703a75b6711dd6fa417c7af1a05933530f6c9fea/item/source/simple/support/misc.hpp#L146
... pending poll results
@ercadio but aren't there a lot of other things you could call that? Also view suggests to me that it's read-only.
would you call a wrapper type, that holds a pointer to a container provides a range interface through that pointer, a range_reference or a reference_range?
hmmm... referring_range?? indirect_range???
@tripu So you did shred it intentionally avoiding my main singular point and trying to derail like a madman? Good to know. And now you are plucking a phrase out of context, intentionally misinterpreting it and tagging the one other participant of the thread... simply amazing.
I'm also glad that we finally established that you don't see a difference between cause and effect, action and consequence, solution and outcome. The statistic becoming even is not solution to the work deaths problem or sex inequality, it's an outcome you would expect when you solve the inequality in completely different ways, which would be mainly cultural shifts towards giving women more agency in society, and diminishing patriarchy.
@tripu wow, thanks for shredding the thread into million pieces on an instance that allows 2^16 characters, I'm sure it's just cause you're computer illiterate or using some crippled client or something, not at all to prevent anyone from following you non-arguments, oh no, that would be ridiculous.
> How is an extremely bad outcome (death, no less) affecting 1,165% more men than women (ie, men being >12× more at risk) not a sex equality issue?
It's not a sex inequality issue cause it can't be solved by sex equality, unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution. How many times should I repeat this. Can you read?
> I’ll ignore the captious question.
The question was not meant to be answered, but for you ponder on it and realize the above, but alas now I had spelled it out for you twice in this thread, as you are apparently averse to thinking.
> My point is that the same people who defend female quotas...
I'm very glad that we have finally established that your point has nothing to do with what you have written in the OP. The argument of benefits for women is a completely different one. It goes something like this: "women have been royally fucked over by our societies for many generation both culturally and genetically and to get them out of the deep pit that we've left them in they need some help". Now if you want to argue with that argue with that, I don't care much about your opinion though. The OP had nothing about that, but I understand this is central point of your entire life's narrative, so not surprising that you assumed that everyone must be aware of it, and view everything in that context.
> “Just mortality”. You mean staying alive...
Yes please attack my words without context. Can you please read the sentence you have quoted till the end? Please, for once? The point is that sex equality, will not cure the deaths. I literally just have this one central point, but you keep ignoring it no matter how many times I repeat and rephrase it.
> Parental fraud does not affect “majority of people” — it affects men only.
Is derailing the only thing you are capable of doing? Obviously I meant men in this context and the point is does not affect majority of men anywhere near as much as the other issues mentioned in the OP affect women, that is most of them, throughout their entire lives.
> Again, how tilted against men has the balance of a specific issue to be for you to acknowledge that that issue is sex-related
I clearly acknowledged it's sex inequality issue, the only one (or I guess two) in your list. Once again, can you read?
> I think I get it now.
Yes men hate OTHER men, and love women. What planet are you from? As a man, try going out and publicly pick a fight with a local woman, you'll, more often then not, be greeted by a local gang of men, who think they own the block, and who will pulverize you in place for gesturing with you hands towards her. As a women you will never be treated so harshly by the same men no matter what you do, because they are not maniacs or killers, their are actually "righteous". Amongst men street fights is common way to settle a dispute, while hitting a woman is blasphemy.
I already spoon fed you the meaning of patriarchy in another thread so refer to that for more details, but the gist is, again, that men devalue lives of OTHER men, not their own lives. I understand how you got confused there, after all you seem convinced this is some kind of a grand conspiracy battle of two factions - all the men vs all the women in the whole wide the world.
@tripu care to actually address my points instead of tagging me in your continued BS?
Meanwhile let me spoon-feed you the meaning of the word and what it is commonly associated with in this context:
In which definition that you yourself are quoting here did you read the word country? Countries are not patriarchies? What are you even talking about? Patriarchy is a culture and it is wide spread in all modern societies. Men are considered superior in pretty much every relevant activity, and more often than not assume leadership roles, be it families, neighborhoods, corporation, governments or whatever other organizations. Woman are objectified and assigned intrinsic value, while men are expandable, unworthy unless proven otherwise. This stems form the most basic notions of patriarchy, that at some point in the past were (and to some degree today are) objective reality due to natural selection:
"Women are incubators, hence intrinsically valuable as long as they stay incubators and don't veer from that path, and men are not worthy of life unless proven loyal and otherwise useful, since intrinsically they pose a competition for ownership of the incubators". This is the culture that men as rulers establish, and once it is established it is supported by men and women alike. In modern societies you can only hear distant echoes of this blatant truth, but it doesn't take a genius to put the two and two together.
@b6hydra I questioned your conception of context in hopes that you would read the OP again and stop derailing. The context I'm talking about is specifically the OP not what you and I happen to think is important at any given point of time.
I'm not asking you to propose the solution, I'm asking you to realize that the solution indeed needs to comprehensively address all social woes and problems, achieve world peace, cure cancer and find god, which you did, so good progress. The fact that the inequality of sexes tips the statistic is at most a curiosity. Now imagine someone talking about actual sex inequality issues, that can actually be solved with equality to various degrees, and then a wild tripu appears and goes like "but what about world peace, cancer and god, shouldn't you be talking about that as well, right now?". Now what do you call that? I call that derailing, and that's pretty much the OP.
@b6hydra are you aware context... like the concept of it? It' s curiosity in context of inequality sexes, not for me. It's not a cause or some sort of a central issue, it's what you get as a result of the established culture.
Now care to actually answer my question? What is your proposed solution to decreasing work related fatalities, homelessness and the likes and how is it in any way related to inequality of sexes? Whatever solution your propose if it makes any sense what so ever it would not have anything to do with one's sex, it's out freaking context, while the OP tries to present it as if it is problem in context of inequality of sexes. Yes a man's life is valued less than woman's, in some cases it's valued less than property (which btw some people see woman as), that is a result of patriarchal culture, not the cause of it. Men die performing dangerous task on their own free will (as much as such a thing is possible) while women are safe and sound as slaves in their households. One of these problems you can solve by convincing people to treat sexes equally, while the other you can't. It's a derailing, a straw-man, that @tripu is using to make you think that this some kind of a all men vs all woman battle royal of who got it worse, while also trying to pretend that he's arguing against such sentiments.
@tripu how the fuck is work deaths a sex equality issue? what's your solution, make sure more women die at work so it's equal, yay, we're done? No, the solution is to make sure less people die in general and that has nothing to do with their sex. Yes if the cultural inequality is decreased you might expect that statistic to also become more even, but that is just a side effect to observe as a curiosity. Same goes for most of your other "men issues" that is literally just mortality, or things like homelessness, imprisonment or drug abuse for same exact logic, the solution to those problems is not in equality of sexes. That leaves you with parental fraud and family court, you may talk about those things in this context... obviously these are very important problems that affect majority of people throughout their lifetime... major major things yes, and not at all a side effects of different issues...
sidenote: objective devaluation of men's lives stem exactly from the same logic as objective valuation of women's, and yes it is patriarchy
why would you ever need aligned storage for a single object that just holds a couple of references?
the aligned storage
https://github.com/OpenBW/openbw/blob/master/sync.h#L1019
the class it's used with
https://github.com/OpenBW/openbw/blob/master/sync.h#L354
is it some kind of "as long as it's aligned it's atomic" x86 nonsense? tempted to just nuke it all...
still can't get over the fact that you'd make something that's not endianness dependent endianness dependent just because you are a C programmer
things that bit me:
operator precedence
note: algebra am I right?
overload resolution
note: a universal reference without type constraints in an overload set should be a yellow flag
value/reference semantics:
note: if you want to absolutely make sure you are referring to a value as a constant and not owning one, use const pointer to const value (or something like std::reference_wrapper to exclude nullptr), not a const reference, since, as we all know, a const reference can bind to a temporary and extend its lifetime.
final thoughts: god I wish I had a garbage collector or a borrow checker to save me from... wait none of these are memory errors? how come?
ended up reworking a lot of the ui code... all the Xes and Ys and half-assed SDL wrappers were getting on my nerves, so partially replaced them with my own half-assed SDL wrappers and vector library...
https://notabug.org/fuglycodelord420/openbw/commits/1aa93b122d1da807267d78d52e600f1dee390777
what's new objectively? well you can make an SCV now by pressing S...
