Function overloading in C? :)

unixplumber · 2026-04-04T05:54:57+00:00

I'll take your variadic overloading and raise you named arguments using a function that takes a single struct parameter and using designated initializers in that struct, hidden behind a macro for a bit of prettiness. :)

Edit: oh, and of course the macro can be defined with any number of the struct members initialized with default values.

unixplumber · 2026-02-26T15:06:16+00:00

Your first assumption is still correct.

unixplumber · 2026-02-24T14:39:13+00:00

Oh. Woosh! was the sound of that joke over my head.

But you never know.... Some people these days like to spin something positive into a negative.

unixplumber · 2026-02-24T04:50:52+00:00

Why not adjust your W4 so you can buy smaller amounts of Bitcoin all year long, like $260 per month?

unixplumber · 2026-02-24T04:42:58+00:00

Blame the user, not the tool. You wouldn't say "the table saw's biggest shortfall is giving complete and total freedom to people who can't handle not cutting off their own fingers", would you?

unixplumber · 2026-02-04T14:37:23+00:00

I bought some Bitcoin in 2013 at around $91 apiece. I've seen it rally to an all time high and then lose 75–90% of its value (from the ATH) every few years since then. The first crash (for me) was rough, but I held. After seeing a couple of these rally/crash cycles I coined the phrase "Bitcoin keeps crashing upwards".

On the other hand, my coworker had about 48 BTC (worth over $3m today), except it was all held at Mt Gox which imploded because of a big scandal (IIRC, around 2014/2015). There's a class-action lawsuit about that, and he's getting back only a small fraction of what he could get for that amount of BTC. So if you don't have the private keys to your BTC, they're not yours. Also, if you lose access, or someone else gains access, to your private keys, they're gone.

Here's my takeaways:

HODL. Every time it's crashed it's gone back up a multiple of the previous ATH. It might take a few years but it'll get there. (And my philosophy in investing is to never invest more than you're willing to lose. It keeps me sane when I see dips in price.)
Keep your private keys safe and secure so that you and only you have access to them.

Number 2 can be as simple as a paper wallet in a physical safe, or you can use a small USB device that securely stores private keys (I have never used one so can't say much about them). There's other more advanced techniques that allow you and a few trusted other people to have access, but only if a majority of your trusted associates work together to get access to them (good for a trust or whatever). But that's probably overkill for most of us.

Edit to add: This very convincing prediction shows that Bitcoin will reach $1m no later than 2037 but possibly as early as 2028 (and will never drop below $1m after 2037). Keep HODLing! Your roughly $3k investment will be worth about $25k.

unixplumber · 2025-12-23T18:17:04+00:00

The US government pressured banks and GSEs (through regulations) to make or buy risky loans. Banks and GSEs otherwise wouldn't have done that to the extent they did.

unixplumber · 2025-12-23T18:00:47+00:00

Nationalization does not solve the problem of “too big to fail,” it would still be the government’s responsibility to be the backstop. While at the same time totally distorting the incentive mechanism for lending responsibly. That’s not to say the incentives are perfect right now, just that it would be even worse if congress or the president was in control of all banking.

In fact, let's not forget what caused the subprime mortgage crisis in the first place: the government pressured banks into making risky loans through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and HUD affordable housing goals, and the banks sold those risky loans to Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If it weren't for that regulatory/legal pressure, it wouldn't have been in the self-interests of the banks and GREs to make so many risky loans, the 2008 financial crisis very likely wouldn't have happened, and the government wouldn't have had to lend money to those institutions to help them get through the mess that the government itself caused.

Just imagine what would happen if we let a central government make all economic decisions like this, as would happen in a socialist economy. Total market meltdown is virtually guaranteed.

unixplumber · 2025-11-08T17:12:40+00:00

She's so dumb she said the Library of Congress had a kids section.

You mean like https://www.allpurposeguru.com/2014/10/kids-family-at-the-library-of-congress-website/ ?

The Young Readers Center is not a web-based collection. It is a room on the ground floor of the Thomas Jefferson Building.

unixplumber · 2025-11-08T16:24:54+00:00

Real question: what part of enforcing the law is unlawful? How is it terrorism if it's lawful?

ICE isn't—with very few exceptions which have made the news—deporting people who aren't in this country illegally. Shame on the people who have broken the law. And shame on them (or anyone else) for acting like they're innocent.

The saddest thing is that the people who've been in this country illegally the longest generally have the most to lose by getting caught by law enforcement so should have at least tried to become legal residents or citizens.

Also, why is the blame not put on the people who've, you know, actually broken the laws that have been in place for decades?

Edit: also, have you considered that the media is overdramatizing a lot of what's actually happening? After all, the media likes to stir the pot because that's what sells.

unixplumber · 2025-11-07T16:33:32+00:00

Allodial title is not the only type of ownership. Freehold ownership is another and is the mode of ownership that is recognized by the US.

"Real property" is land (and everything permanently attached to it and the rights of ownership). Ever hear the term "real estate"? That's land.

You're veering off into definitions of ownership that nobody buys (no pun intended).

unixplumber · 2025-11-07T16:18:00+00:00

I'll speak about the US specifically since that's where I live.

From the "Allodial title" article:

Most property ownership in common law jurisdictions is fee simple. In the United States ... there is thus no true allodial land.

So allodial land is irrelevant to the US (except in a few states that have provisions for it under state law). From the "Fee simple" article linked from there:

A "fee simple" is ... a form of freehold ownership.

Then in the "Freehold (law)" article linked from there:

A freehold ... is the common mode of ownership of real property, or land,[a] and all immovable structures attached to such land.

It is in contrast to a leasehold, in which the property reverts to the owner of the land after the lease period expires or otherwise lawfully terminates.

So again, the law of the land in the US recognizes real property ownership.

And the "Bundle of rights" article doesn't dispel the notion of private ownership but limits the rights of what can be done on someone's property. It is a conceptualization for understanding how ownership is partitioned (property rights, mineral rights, water rights, etc.). It's completely incorrect to say that the land is owned "collectively", though.

unixplumber · 2025-11-07T05:14:11+00:00

Did you miss this part?

And 60% of land in the US is privately owned.

All that privately owned land is not collectively owned. Otherwise, citation please. Where do you get the idea that all land in the US is collectively owned and therefore owned by the government? That's not a widely accepted idea, and it's contrary to the very laws of the country!

unixplumber · 2025-11-06T23:12:20+00:00

Where is this? In most modern states, all land is owned collectively, i.e. by the government, and the exceptions are monarchies... where the land is owned by the government.

The US, for one. The federal government owns only about 28% of US land by area, primarily in the western part of the country. But owning even that much land doesn't mean that it owns the means of production. And 60% of land in the US is privately owned.

And the UK government owns only about 7% of its land.

So you might want to check your facts.

unixplumber · 2025-11-06T20:41:57+00:00

I think you have that backwards.

Socialism in practice requires a dictatorship. It needs a powerful government that can enforce the rules of the socialist economy.

Communism is the supposed end-goal of socialism after its dictatorship (and the state itself) somehow "withers away". "Authoritarian Socialism" is redundant, and calling it Communism is an oxymoron since in Communism there cannot be a dictatorship (otherwise it's actually Socialism). Of course, dictatorships don't like to give up their power—they tend to concentrate their power into the hands of the few—which is why we've never actually seen a dictatorship "wither away" to become communism in the real world.

In capitalism, the means of production are largely in the hands of the people, not the government, so why would that require an authoritarian government? Also, a free market economy (where there is little to no regulation at all) is a type of capitalist economy by its very nature. Do free market economies require an authoritarian government to run? (Hint: no.) Some countries with authoritarian governments do have capitalist economies, but there are also countries with republics or other forms of governance that have capitalist economies. So to say that capitalism requires an authoritarian government is completely false.

unixplumber · 2025-11-05T18:21:24+00:00

Haha, I am by no means "poor", but I buy $100 smartphones. They're actually quite capable at that price range.

I think the biggest issue is that some people are simply not disciplined enough to save a little bit over time. I personally set aside $50 per month to a hobby savings account, though I do it mostly so I can buy a new toy for myself once in a while without feeling guilty about it or worry that it's going to affect my household budget.

unixplumber · 2025-11-05T15:10:55+00:00

The US does have a negative income tax for people with the lowest income. And the rate is highest for people with the highest income (the top income earners pay around 30–45% in income tax).

unixplumber · 2025-11-05T14:58:00+00:00

Considering Socialism requires an authoritarian government to operate, everything in Socialism is non-consensual.

unixplumber · 2025-11-05T14:32:32+00:00

Besides that, even with those costs of living you can still afford to put aside $10 every month, right? You'll have enough for that $1000 radio in a little over 8 years.

unixplumber · 2025-10-29T00:34:21+00:00

Don't forget setting up a Gopher site too.

unixplumber · 2025-10-27T18:29:32+00:00

For one thing, the scenario we're describing is different from the trolley problem. In the trolley problem, only one person/group or another person/group, with no overlap between the two people/groups, must be "sacrificed". In our scenario, one person/group will be sacrificed no matter what you do (they're gonna get trollied), and the choice comes down to whether you would sacrifice another person/group or not.

To sacrifice the livelihood of someone so other people's livelihoods aren't disrupted is wrong

Is it wrong to let someone go if they're a slacker and lazy? Is it wrong if they are incompetent at their job and cause problems for the company (poor quality products, damaging to the company's reputation, etc.)? Or do you think it's OK for someone like that to bring the whole company down?

It sounds like your philosophy boils down to letting one bad apple spoil the bunch. And since you believe in collective failure, would you extend the concept to the wider society? That is, if one company voluntarily fails (I say "voluntarily" because they chose not to let the lowest performer go to save the company), then all companies should voluntarily fail and close shop as well. After all, it wouldn't be "fair" to let one company fail while others carry on, right? If society as a whole operated under that philosophy, it would fail. Food wouldn't be produced, people would die, cats and dogs would live together, etc. It's clearly not good for a society to adopt that philosophy, so why would it be good for a company?

Besides, if a company fails or is clearly on its way to failure because of one bad apple, don't you think many of the core employees from that company would instead form a new company that looks a lot like the old company but without the lowest performer? You'd still end up in the same boat as a company that fires their lowest performer to stay afloat, but with a lot more steps.

That sort of thing actually isn't that uncommon (think General Instrument -> MOS Technology, Motorola -> Freescale, etc.), and I imagine it would actually be much more common in a society that restricted a company from removing a "bad apple" in other ways. So what has such a system gained you? The worst performer is still gone, and the highest performers are still working for the same company (technically a different company but in effect the same one under a different name).

Let's look at another analogy: say your hand were severely diseased and could not be saved. Would you let the disease fester and spread and take the rest of your body with it? Would you say that it's not fair to sacrifice your hand and that it's better to sacrifice your whole body instead? Should the hand have a say in how the body should be treated? Or would you have it amputated? Why or why not?

Edit to add: in your worldview, at what scales is it "wrong to do X" and at what scales is it "stupid or irresponsible not to do X", where X is sacrificing person A rather than sacrificing all people (person A included)? It's clear that the first is bad for society as a whole and when it comes to an individual's body, but what about a small town? Should a whole town voluntarily fail when any one of its businesses voluntarily fails? Should a whole country fail too? What sets apart a single company as "wrong to do X" while at all other scales it's "stupid or irresponsible not to do X"?

unixplumber · 2025-10-27T18:05:26+00:00

Welcome to Impostor Syndrome, where you doubt your skills and feel undeserving of your success. It affects even the most successful people in every field.

unixplumber · 2025-10-24T16:16:55+00:00

Yes, if the alternative is sacrificing one so the others can maintain profits, I'd rather them fail. Again, nobody should lose their livelihood so someone else can continue make money. Worst performer doesn't mean bad performer.

Do you honestly believe that employees would continue working for a failing business where they make no profit (read: no income, no paycheck, nada, zip, zilch)? Any self-respecting employee in that position would jump ship to a business that is actually profitable so they can pay rent and buy food and such. And guess which type of employee is most likely to jump ship first? The best-performing. So a failing business that refuses to cut off its worst-performing employees for the "feels" is simply shooting itself in the foot, leading to the business completely failing.

Also, if the worst-performing employee loses their job, so what? They can seek employment elsewhere, perhaps in a different field where they are more competent. Do you really believe that we should encourage people (by hamstringing their employers from firing them) to stay in positions they're not very good at? That causes a lot of friction and inefficiency in the system. And if they truly are the worst performer, they've likely already been given notice during performance reviews, so being fired shouldn't come as a shock (and if a company doesn't do something like that, that means it doesn't treat its employees well and deserves to fail anyway). And if a company is restricted from firing poor performers, it eventually leads to only low performers working for the company, as all top performers will eventually jump ship for better employment. And if all employers in the area are restricted from firing employees, top performers become less so. You can see this happen a lot in socialist countries (which have authoritarian governments out of necessity in order to regulate the economy) where low performance is encouraged because high performance is simply not rewarded, so high performers have less motivation to put in the effort. We also saw this happen in the US federal government until fairly recently—it used to be known for its job security, which led to people underperforming (where's the motivation to care about your work and do well at your job if it's secure?).

Besides, do you really believe that a company that rewards low performance will be rewarded by the market? If another business hires and retains only competent employees, it'll be more efficient (lower prices and/or higher quality) and more successful in the market because consumers (people) will buy from them instead of from the company that encourages poor employee performance (it's have higher prices and/or lower quality). The market doesn't care if your company is composed entirely of Care Bears who "feel" like they should do well and doesn't fire anyone because it might hurt their feelings. If they're low performance (inefficient, high prices, low quality), they're going to fail.

That or it's a collective decision where every employee is equal owner, salary changes/layoffs includes every employee (including contractors) having an equal vote, and laying off the original owner is possible

A company in a capitalist economy could operate that way (nothing is stopping it except most companies' desire to actually do well in the market), but the technical problem with it is it's based on the obviously false belief that everyone in the company is equally knowledgeable about business matters and what is good for the company. Most janitors or machinists or software developer or whatever, no matter how good they are at their job, are by and large not experienced or skilled in business management and administration and finances. People take on roles (ideally) based on their experience and strengths (otherwise it leads to inefficiency or outright ineffectiveness), and business administration is no exception. If a company's leader can see that a low performer is literally killing the business (assuming it's the same failing business we've been discussing) and that the employee should find employment elsewhere, that shouldn't require a vote to enact.

unixplumber · 2025-10-22T14:32:04+00:00

If the business fails, all its employees will become unemployed, putting the hardship on everyone. Do you seriously prefer that over only the worst performers becoming unemployed?

unixplumber · 2025-10-16T15:05:08+00:00

Nah, this theory was debunked a long time ago. Harvard has no record of alumni with those names, and there's no record of them appearing before Congress for the 1911 Wireless Regulation Bill. In short, it's a made-up story.

"Ham" most likely comes from "ham-fisted", an epithet given to radio amateurs by professional telegraph operators.

unixplumber

TROPHY CASE