Val

Decided to have a go myself:

Or a vertical one:

And a NB one:

Ok. I think I'm done.

My logic was simply: I need a buffer that is only initialised once no matter how many times the function is called. statics are initialised at program start so they seemed like a good fit. and since I wasn't planning for the function to me called multiple times simultaneously it seemed like the UB didn't matter. (which I think was correct)

Thanks! That's exactly the answer I was looking for.

The premature optimisation quote at the end of your blog post is very relevant to me. I try do find the most efficient way right off the bat so very frequently the first questions I have in a project are like this one. Which in turn lead me to understand the underlying basics, which make me want to implement those basics myself, which sends me down a spiral to wanting to write my own kernel. All the while the project I started with gets forgotten, until I pick it up a month later and the whole thing starts again.

Maybe I should just try and learn C... or zig. And try and hold myself to the higher quality standard they demand. Especially since it feels like I'm doing that already.

Learn more of what exactly?

If you mean anarchy then I always recommend the AFAQ: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html. (elections are handled in section J.2).

If you don't (mean anarchy) then I don't (have any recommendations).

The quote is in the context of socialist/anarchist ideas. If you are referring to the USian right then they are doing it because they are fascist who want to remain in power. and they've been making voting harder for a long time now in order to disenfranchise voters and get in power. From my anarchist point of view both neo-liberal democracy and fascism are the status-quo.

I know. I deliberately chose to use a different scale for the word to make a point. By that I mean reformist/traditionalist instead of reformist/revolutionary. Using reformist for anyone who wants to change(reform) society.

I do this quite a lot. deliberately misinterpret the point to point out the fuzziness of terms. I should probably remember to point that out whenever I do it.

"They stand for greed. They stand for hate. For nothing I believe."

No politician can be reformist. It's a job that requires subservience to the status quo. After all "If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal."

One example: Instead of building a wind farm, we are arguing about economic impact, and then still stay on coal while we that argument occurs.

I agree, we should shut down the coal plants and start rationing energy instead. That way you can be sure that the green energy plants will get built efficiently. Nothing like a little discomfort to get people moving.

(This is only a half-serious point. There is a part of me that thinks this will actually work but overall I think it causes more problems than the gradual change.)