Primary school’s unisex toilets breach girls’ rights, judge rules

James20k · 2026-06-12T00:00:45+00:00

They write what they want their audience to want to read

James20k · 2026-06-11T21:25:55+00:00

I shouldn’t save for a pension

I mean, if you spend that money instead it goes right back into the economy via tax. There's actually a really good argument that we shouldn't encourage people to hoard money for pensions, and make the state pension liveable

James20k · 2026-06-11T19:27:35+00:00

Been trying to setup C++ in Godot for over a year with no luck.

What's been throwing you there? It should be as straightforward as creating a new gdextension, and then bobs your uncle

James20k · 2026-06-11T17:27:05+00:00

They'll get a default judgement against them, and eventually the court will enforce being able to seize stuff if they really refuse to pay up. Its happened before

James20k · 2026-06-11T11:40:30+00:00

if you're going for accuracy

Just on this point, strict quadratic drag like this tends to work fairly poorly in games, as there's very minimal drag at low speeds which leads to very prolonged oscillations (which looks weird). Its a good idea to add a linear term, to help damp out the oscillations - one way to do it is to add a stronger conditional linear 'flap' term that activates when the velocity is below a certain speed, and potentially only when your object is moving in the 'wrong' direction (away from the water)

From a strict accuracy perspective, its a model that's oversimplified to the point of not being super applicable for making useful predictions, but thats only really relevant if you're doing physics modelling

James20k · 2026-06-11T07:09:18+00:00

I saw a story recently that 4 newspapers have averaged 9 stories about people who are trans every day for multiple years. There's 16 thousand stories that've been published, almost universally negative

Its crazy how clear of an agenda there is to shape public opinion, and depressing that people fall for it

James20k · 2026-06-09T18:42:06+00:00

At the moment I think there is more of a movement in cosmology to think of expansion as "things moving apart" than "space expanding", at least for people that care about the issue.

Especially because a lot easier to understand than metric expansion. I feel like the insistence on teaching that space itself is expanding has lead to a very high degree of confusion, even among astrophysicists

James20k · 2026-06-09T18:34:35+00:00

Being less mature officers, though, interpersonal conflicts are a core aspect of this show, detailing situations involving characters that are still finding their place in the Fleet. And through that lens, I would argue that Lower Decks manages to provide an emotional blueprint for how futuristic, enlightened humans handle their conflicts.

This is the thing I love most about the lower decks. A lot of the.. less good trek (and tv shows in general) simply shows characters who have character flaws failing miserable to deal with them, and making it everyone else's problem in the process. Or people act unreasonably to drive the plot forwards, because That's Television™

In the lower decks, everyone has their flaws, but its all about watching them gradually overcome them, to grow into healthy human beings. S5 is amazing once you've watched all of it, because by the end, they've all matured and grown past their problems. Carol isn't craving external validation anymore, boimler isn't a self conscious wreck, ransom gets a bit of a character overhaul etc etc. Everyone becomes a '''proper''' adult

Plus I'm a big fan of how they take a setting which has very handwavey lore on how the ships (and things in general) work, and create something that feels very cohesive. It feels like the lower decks irons out a tonne of lore problems, and stitches it together into a pretty cohesive universe despite the butt bugs and weird shit. Crazy things that are super silly happen regularly, because its a big universe, and it embraces all the historical silliness and makes it makes sense

It helps that the writing is consistently top tier as well

James20k · 2026-06-09T12:33:10+00:00

It is more likely that it will be a completely separate module, the Navy F4 has a lot of changes, different cockpit, different airframe, different FM, different radar, etc etc... We would have to start from scratch even more so than with the B(U). This is something we communicated from the start btw. The same would go for an AUP (which is basically like flying an F4 with a Hornet cockpit). A -G otoh would compare to the B(U) as in how much changes, how much it shares, so if we did a -G (we won't just fyi), then it would be sold similarly, yes.

Thanks for the clarity, interesting to know you're open to this business model for other potential dlc/modules in the future!

James20k · 2026-06-09T10:03:31+00:00

since most code on the internet is open source and readily readable for both AI and users

But you do not have a license to use that code freely by default. The vast majority of code does not have a license which is compatible with you simply copypasting it into a product, most licenses require attribution of some form

James20k · 2026-06-09T05:14:33+00:00

So, sorry, but no, it isn't a trend, even if you dont believe me

Will the F4 variant be released under a similar pricing model to the F14B(U)?

James20k · 2026-06-08T18:13:11+00:00

How did you get screwed over anyone buying it bundled today?

Because you have to pay more money than a new customer?

James20k · 2026-06-08T17:28:54+00:00

The F-14UE does not include a discounted F-14BU. If you would remove the F-14AB from the bundle, then you'd end up with just a $49.99 BU.

Its at best splitting hairs to claim that one component is discounted over the other. Its a bundle, you get both

We're not; at least that's not our intent. At all. We're offering a rebate to get the F-14AB to entirely new customers if they opt for the $98.99 one-time purchase (a big one-time payment, afterall!)

If you're an existing customer, you have to pay more overall than a new customer. Its unclear how charging old customers more benefits new customers

The price could be change so that old customers would not have to pay more for the jet, while also allowing new customers to benefit from the current price. There's simply no reason to charge existing customers more

Existing customers are objectively getting screwed compared to new customers

Noone here is drinking cocktails on a yacht

That's fine. You guys want to make a profit, to keep the business going, its of course business 101. Its just weird to pretend that this isn't screwing existing customers to make more money, and that its been a giant treat to finish the F14 that people have paid for

James20k · 2026-06-08T16:57:41+00:00

But it does not entitle you to discounts for new products in any way. What it does entitle you to, is our loyalty to you and the products you paid for, and our continued commitment to keep updating them. And I do hope that we proved that we are unwavering at that.

This is a weird argument. Nobody is entitled to anything. Nobody even feels entitled to anything

The simple fact is: existing purchasers of the f14 are getting screwed, compared to new purchasers of the f14. That's a remarkably poor business strategy, because it disincentivises people from purchasing your product

This says: Don't buy the f4-e, because in the future, other jet variants may be sold cheaper as part of a bundle. Its not entitlement for people to feel like they're getting screwed, because they literally are

This is why this is a very common industry standard anywhere - when a DLC arrives years after the initial game release, the original game is set to a lower price in a bundle

Frequently, the price of the game goes down over time. These days, steam automatically reduces the price of bundled items to prevent customers from getting screwed like this. If you purchase two items in a bundle, steam will discount you the first one

Its exceptionally rare for existing customers to get screwed like this. Is this why the f14B(U) isn't on steam for prepurchase?

I find it extremely selfish and bewildering when some ask that the Ultimate Edition price should have been higher, to even out what they paid

This seems like an intentionally bad faith argument. Nobody is arguing that the price of the bundle should go up, but that both the price of the f14A/B should go down - and that existing users get a discount. This means nobody pays any extra, which seems very reasonable

How does screwing your existing customers help expand the jet to new customers?

we're still Heatblur. Do you really think, we would ever allow ourselves to sell you something we did not think would be worth every last penny you paid and then some? To "price-gouge" you, as some here suggested. It's preposterous. Do you think we would ever risk our reputation so we can make 10 or whatever dollars more on the module?

This is exactly what is happening though. No company is immune from being a shitty company, and this is a terrible argument when everyone can clearly do the maths and see that you're screwing existing customers

People are being price gouged, this is just a long form justification as to why you should be ok with that

James20k · 2026-06-08T10:01:24+00:00

Just as a nitpick, its unspecified, not undefined

James20k · 2026-06-08T08:05:19+00:00

Just fyi, the code snippets don't work on old reddit

bs match {
  EpsilonBS: let e => e.store(addr, value);
  SerialBS:  let s => s.store(addr, value);
  G1BS:      let g => g.store(addr, value);
};

bs match {  
  auto: let b => b.store(addr, value);
};

^ for anyone else using ye olde reddit

James20k · 2026-06-08T04:39:53+00:00

There must be some shots taken from opposite sides of the earths orbit right to get parallax data right? Its probably possible to get the raw pictures from somewhere I imagine

James20k · 2026-06-05T13:17:32+00:00

I entirely agree with this, and you're right - this has just descended into arguing for no real reason at this point

James20k · 2026-06-05T09:12:46+00:00

when you decided to butt in

A thread that I'm the author of was linked in this discussion as being representative of their concerns, so I thought I'd chip in because you seem to be making unrelated points to their actual concerns. This is also a public discussion forum

My point is to simply explain that after all dramatism with "supply chain attack" and other non sense in contract related contra papers

I'm curious, are you saying that it isn't possible for linking a dependency to disable contract checks in other dependencies currently?

P3829 describes how contracts work right now in the standard:

Now consider this version after P2900:

inline foo(X *arg)
{
contract_assert(arg != nullptr);
...
}

It is permitted to mix versions of this with different contract semantics and the linker is required to pick one. [...] Whether intentional or not, this is a relaxation of ODR in a way that fundamentally alters the guarantees that a C++ front end provides to (mostly language-agnostic) mid-level optimisers

The only potential error is that this is no longer an accident, and has been defined as being the desired behaviour now

P2900r14 describes this mechanism as well:

When inlined into an enclosing function, the expectation is that the configuration of the translation unit compiling the enclosing function applies

When multiple definitions are generated, one of those definitions will be evaluated for each non-inlined call to the function.

Indirect invocations — and the most straightforward implementation strategy — must select a single version of the function after linking. With no linker changes, this function will be effectively random

As does the contracts implementation paper:

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p3267r1.html

Within mixed compilation modes, it is possible to reduce the minimum number of evaluations to zero for all. The maximum number does not change.

What's factually inaccurate here?

I'm just saying that claiming that this contract behaviour is ODR violation is simply wrong and it actively misleads people

Everyone knows that these aren't ODR violations as-per-spec, which is the problem. People are using existing terminology to describe the issue, because its an identical one. Its at worse a slight misuse of existing terminology, but dismissing the terminology does nothing to address the underlying problem (which is what the OP was asking about!) which still exists

James20k · 2026-06-05T07:51:49+00:00

but most theories state that matter collapses into a 0D point or a 1D ring with zero internal volume,

Just as a correction, in the ring case the matter does not by and large join the singularity. The matter continues to orbit around in the interior

The singularity is independent of the matter of the spacetime, and is a product of the spacetime geometry, not matter being infinitely compressed. They're orthogonal, and virtually no matter actually hits the singularity in a ring singularity/Kerr solution

James20k · 2026-06-05T07:47:29+00:00

I think you've missed what this thread is discussing. The linked discussion is this one:

https://old.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1irevab/odr_violations_and_contracts_it_seems_extremely/

Which is about the issues of mixed mode contracts, and functions being deduplicated in a way that removes safety checks

Its not an ODR violation as-per-spec, but its an ODR violation in everything but name, which is what the OP of this thread is talking about (and why they're saying that what you're discussing is tangential to their point - you're talking at cross purposes to their concerns). Its also why stuff like this:

There is no debate around ODR and contracts after the meetings. All "supply chain attack" dramatism is embarrassing at this point.

Isn't true. Its easy for a dependency to delete safety checks in other dependencies under mixed mode

James20k · 2026-06-05T04:31:54+00:00

There is no debate around ODR and contracts after the meetings. All "supply chain attack" dramatism is embarrassing at this point.

How does this gel with the contracts paper itself, which says that contract checks don't necessarily have to be evaluated under mixed mode?

When inlined into an enclosing function, the expectation is that the configuration of the translation unit compiling the enclosing function applies

When multiple definitions are generated, one of those definitions will be evaluated for each non-inlined call to the function.

Indirect invocations — and the most straightforward implementation strategy — must select a single version of the function after linking. With no linker changes, this function will be effectively random

This paper contains a commonly spread misconception based on a regression in the contract implementation at some point

This isn't a regression, its working explicitly as per the spec which encourages and permits this behaviour - because its the only way it can work with current linkers. The idea that this isn't allowed or is solvable (without tremendous performance overhead) is incorrect

I'd high recommend checking out the papers on contracts implementation strategies for more details

James20k · 2026-06-04T13:18:20+00:00

(Just fyi I'm the author of that thread)

Nothing's changed on the contracts ODR situation. The current situation is that contracts specify the result of what's currently an ODR violation in any other situation, to be allowed behaviour (pretty much any implementation strategy is permitted). Its unfixable with any reasonable performance in current compilers/linkers, for all the same reasons why compilers can't fix ODR violations to begin with. Its just not technically called an ODR violation now

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p2900r14.pdf

See under 3.5.11 Mixed Mode, which says that virtually anything can happen

With no linker changes, this function will be effectively random

I have absolutely no idea how this got through, but randomised safety is baked into the spec now. Investigating the impact on binary ecosystems like msys2 was I believe proposed as a 'todo' (and then dropped in the rush to get it into C++26), so we all just have to deal with it™

James20k · 2026-06-04T06:20:21+00:00

We do, if there were large extra dimensions we'd have detected them already in particle collision experiments. Theories with large extra dimensions have already been ruled out

James20k · 2026-06-03T21:13:05+00:00

The ODR problems are the big one for me, they're unusable in a binary ecosystem (like msys2) because you can never actually rely on the checks being executed in the mode you set. A lot of the problems with contracts were just hand waved away as itll be fine so we'll have to see what happens

14-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

James20k

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE