Sounds like a great game; I have "games" during my 6yo's bathtime. These games have now evolved to multiplying numbers by four (or three, two), subtraction and addition of 2-digit numbers, etc. Also a few word games (Rhymes, etc)

Since it's in the bath, no paper and pencils are used, but it's good fun for him.

How would that affect the world?

> 100/10 for mobile usability. Panning, Zooming, selecting and moving was so seamless I thought I was tripping out.

Yeah, my first thought was that the diagramming bit needs to be ripped out into its own library, because I can see a use for the diagramming bits for more than ER diagrams.

All the foot guns in C are still in C++, and C++ adds a significant multiple more.

The regular table saw is still in the new workshop, and the new workshop adds a SawStop and another regular table saw.

Memory corruption magnets like iterator invalidation, std::string_view or std::span are on a whole different level than the footguns that were inherited from C. At least with C style raw pointers you know that you have to be careful when you see one, in C++ the unsafety is lurking in hidden places sprinkled all over the stdlib and comes in all shapes and forms.

Clang usage is a fraction of GCC usage.

Regards, an embedded dev.

A decade ago surely, in 2026 I doubt it.

With Android, iDevices, PlayStation, Switch, and everyone that had proprietary compilers down using downstream forks from clang, due to the more appealing license.

Who is left still using GCC, other than existing projects lacking a clang backend for a snowflake embed CPU?

In any case, if it is a modern GCC release past 2012, it was compiled with C++ as well.

The license is indeed the big reason for many proprietary forks (not so much that llvm is written in C++). This is not a good thing though.

> Why VAT?

> This is a little harder but not too hard: Because it’s the mirror of UBI. The UBI will fund consumption, VAT taxes consumption.

This is dumb; there's literally no other way to put it!

VAT is a tax exemption on the rich; that's all it is.

100%, VAT is a regressive tax. Poor people use a large portion of their wealth on products and services. Rich people use a much, much smaller portion of their wealth on those things.

Plus rich people all have companies pay for a lot of their stuff. Need a new laptop? Buy it through your company. Internet and cellular plan? Company. New cell phone? Company. Many even have their cars paid by an compaby. All those purchases through your company are VAT exempt. Poor people buy their own laptops and their own cell phones and have their own Internet subscription and cell plan and car. They pay the VAT.

I'm in Norway, where the standard VAT rate is at 25%. I don't understand how such a vast regressive tax is so uncontroversial here. Get rid of it and replace it with a larger wealth and capital gains tax.

> In what way are those undergraduate degrees any less narrowing of scope than a CS undergraduate degree?

They aren't, but your specialist knowledge draws from two disciplines.

If you undergrad is in CS, your specialist knowledge is in one discipline exclusively.

> I'm sorry, but when you cry out for government involvement, it's not always going to be coming from the government you personally wanted.

I've pointed this out so many times when enforced DEI and cancellation culture was rife, and was asked, basically, why I wanted to be a nazi :-/

> It's called C. With all the undefined behavior it's mostly deterministic!

With AI, all programs have undefined behaviour, regardless of language.

> TBH I never contributed to Open Source because of the effort needed to bring my PR from "works on my machine" to "compliant with the rest of codebase". Especially that I only want to implement one small thing.

That's a good thing; OSS projects don't want drive-by contributors, they want a community. A small bit of friction is a good thing.

After all, we can see what happens with frictionless contributions.

I some times will open a PR even if i know it will get closed, simply by because if its a bugfix or feature i want, someone else might do so too, and i have many times adopted code from PR's that were never adopted by mainstream or closed.

By pushing that PR, i might be annoying a grouchy maintainer, but at the same time helping tens or hundreds of other users of the software.

Imho the beauty of open source is as long as you're adhering to the licenses, you can do whatever the heck you want =)

If you already know it's not good enough, you can just say so by calling it a proof of concept or hack to demonstrate what needs to be done. Such code is often very useful when writing the real fix.

Yup, some of my first contributions when I was a teenager, was to an open source project where I was able to find a couple of bugs, and implement a hacky solution that I shared with the team on the forum. My code was absolutely awful, but by having done both the effort of tracking down the cause of the bug, and one possible way of fixing it (which was badly coded, but worked), made the developers able to quickly turn around and edit my patches into actual patches that got merged into the project.

And it was actually a pretty good feeling. Made me feel that even as a newbie programmer, I was adding value to the community, which I was!

I've done the same for a fix in the Gold linker, which is now obsolete due to even faster linkers being available. Shout out to Ian Lance Taylor, his behavior as the maintainer was exemplary: very gracious and very responsive.