entwine

These types of posts worry me because I can't tell how much of it is a joke, and how much of it is sincere. It's starting to feel like the healthy skepticism towards Valve that existed before is now mutating into Apple fanboy shit.

Valve is a monopolist. Maybe you happen to like them, but they're still a monopolist. They have a monopoly on PC gaming, and you're cheering for them to have a monopoly on smartphones? Maybe you think they'll be "better" monopolists than Apple or Google, but they're still fucking monopolists. Monopolization is the root cause of the enshittification epidemic, and a lot of the inequality and just obviously-broken shit in the economy. It's no coincidence the Trump admin is so eagerly supporting consolidation, and his FTC has stopped absolutely zero mergers.

This is the non-political version of the "leopards ate my face party" joke.

Even better

I have Stremio+Torrentio set up on my deck, and use a PS5 controller for its trackpad since Stremio is very difficult to navigate with a controller. Still, the PS5 controller sucks in a lot of ways and I'd love to upgrade to this!

Sony added a screen to their controller to create a handheld, whereas Valve removed the screen from their handheld to create a controller.

The same way you did, via the name of the member: my_test.test2.b = 'x';

The unnamed struct provides the type for a member named test2. Doing it this way saves you the trouble of defining the struct externally and giving it a name. It's identical to this, except in this example you can reuse the struct definition:

struct crappyname {
    char b;
    float c;
};
struct test {
    int a;
    struct crappyname test2;
    double d;
};

Lua is cozy, like a nice, warm dumpster fire.

Ackshually, the meme is encoded using progressively smaller images nested into the fourth panel of the comic. Each fourth panel is effectively a nested function call to the original comic procedure, which more closely represents recursion than an infinite loop.

For an infinite loop, one might instead lay out the 3 unique panels horizontally, and just memcpy them into rows below, creating a table. That's a regression in humor, but it'd fix the bug.

So I agree with @ryannathans@aussie.zone's review; The joke is about infinite loops, but the visual gag is about recursion.

That's how I started. When I was 10 years old, I discovered game maker and accidentally gained a lifelong passion for programming.

not the computer wizkid, but the average one

I can assure you that 10 year old me was below average with computers. It's a miracle I managed to figure out how to install gamemaker at all. The only thing that matters is interest, passion, and determination. If the child doesn't have those things, they probably won't succeed, and you probably can't force them to, which is fine. It doesn't mean they won't become a software engineer in the future, just that they won't do it at an early age. I know engineers who started learning programming in college, and are way smarter than me even though I had almost a decade head start.

EDIT: btw, I don't know if I'd recommend gamemaker today. When I started with it, it was simple and specifically aimed at learning. Today, it's trying to be a full-blown commercial game engine and it has gotten pretty complex. Another option might be Godot, but I'd strongly recommend against it. Godot is way too complex for someone's first game engine. Some people like Scratch, but IMO it's pretty lame and feels more like a homework assignment.

Some possible alternatives (haven't used them myself):

• https://www.construct.net/en
• https://gdevelop.io/
• https://www.rpgmakerweb.com/

Or just search for "no code game engine" in your favorite search engine. There are probably tons of those today.

Everyone knows that memory safety isn't the only source of security vulnerabilities (unless you're bickering about programming languages on the internet, in which case 100% of security vulnerabilities are related to memory safety)

Rust users are one of Rust's biggest weaknesses.

You can already do that in standard C like this:

struct test {
        int a;
        struct {
                char b;
                float c;
        } test2;
        double d;
};

I can't think of any particular reason why you'd want an unnamed struct inside a struct, but you definitely would want to be able to have an unnamed struct inside a union. I suspect the struct-inside-struct thing can become useful in some scenarios involving unions.

Europe has backyards?

They were only in office for 4 years, and while they did a lot they couldn't do everything.

Not everything is about politics.

No, but antitrust enforcement obviously is