Given the following declaration and initialization:
auto x = 'a';
what is the type of x?
x is a char
x is a short
x is an int
x is a long
x is something else
this won't compile because auto isn't a C keyword
this won't compile for some other reason
(see results)
Remaining time: 6 days 1 hour
There are two correct answers here:
Under C99, C11, and C17 (GCC/Clang flags "-std=c99", "-std=c11", or "-std=c17"), the answer is "this won't compile for some other reason".
Under C89, C95, and C23 (GCC/Clang flags "-std=c89", "-std=iso9899:199409", and "-std=c23"), the answer is int.
Why? A few reasons:
auto is, in fact, a keyword. It has been since C89, and since K&R before that, and since B before that. It is a storage-class specifier (like static or thread_local or constexpr) and means "automatic storage duration"; AKA "this variable is freed at the end of the enclosing scope", AKA "this is a stack variable". Automatic storage is the default storage class for local variables (of course), and also only valid for local variables, so prior to C23 specifying it was always redundant.
Prior to C99, variable declarations without a type were implicitly given the type int.¹ Thus, in C89 and C95, this declaration is equivalent to auto int x = 'a';
From C99 until C23, this won't compile, but only because variable declarations without a type are illegal. auto is still a legal storage specifier. The relevant GCC/Clang diagnostic is -Wimplicit-int.
In C23 this declaration becomes legal once again, because a variable declared with the auto storage specifier and without a type (a so-called "direct declarator") now performs type inference. This is equivalent to writing auto typeof('a') x = 'a';
"But wait," you might ask, "why is x an int, if its type is inferred from its initializer? Isn't 'a' a char?" Nope! That's the case in C++, but confusingly, character literals in C have the type int, and thus so does x. We would have to write auto x = (char)'a'; to declare x to be a char.
¹A remnant of this behavior persists: writing unsigned, signed, short, long, or long long is equivalent to writing unsigned int, signed int, short int, long int, or long long int.
What the guy at redbull's marketing department says: "Based on predictive models and surveyed demographics, we estimate the increased brand recognition created by candidate campaigns A, C, and G would have positive return on investment within the next three fiscal quarters."
What the guy at redbull's marketing department thinks: "Trebucheting a guy across the Grand Canyon would be dope, I hope this convinced them to do it"
In 2026, the chicest thing a gay actor can do is never explicitly come out as gay but also make it abundantly clear that he is. Coming out is too modern. Staying closeted is too old fashioned. But this method merges contemporary freedom with Old Hollywood glamour and allure, and it weeds out the dumbest people who truly don’t get it. I call it the Pascal Method.
You clearly don't go here or to queer history and signaling, or both, enough to have this conversation and I'm not going to explain it to you. You could have asked questions, you could have done even a modicum of research. You didn't and you made yourself look ignorant. Goodbye.
You clearly don't go here or to queer history and signaling, or both, enough to have this conversation and I'm not going to explain it to you. You could have asked questions, you could have done even a modicum of research. You didn't and you made yourself look ignorant. Goodbye.
“Subverting” Catholic art? Oh, okay. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You log onto the internet and you post about how “Wound of Christ” from Psalter and Prayer Book of Bonne de Luxembourg, attributed to Jean le Noir, c.1349, for instance, looks like a vulva because you're trying to tell the world that you enjoy Catholic art and imagery in an alternative, queer, risqué way that challenges Christian beliefs. But what you don't know is that that stigma isn’t just a vulva. It's not just a mandorla. It's not just yonic. It's actually intentionally erotic. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that around 1297, Saint Angela of Foligno experienced a vision of Christ himself, who called her to put her mouth to the wound in his side and lick the freshly flowing blood. And then I think it was Saint Catherine of Siena who drank blood and a clear liquid from the wound before receiving a ring made from Christ’s foreskin? And then graphically erotic encounters with the side wound of Christ quickly showed up in the writings of eight different mystics. And then the yonic interpretation of the stigmata filtered down through the illuminated manuscripts and then trickled on down into some pseudo-intellectual corner of the internet…where you, no doubt, fished it out of some Pinterest board. However, that interpretation represents hundreds of years and countless visions of religious ecstasy. And it's sort of comical how you think that you've come up with an idea that exempts you from Christian theology when, in fact…you're posting an image that was sexualized for you by the very Medieval saints you think you’re so different than…from “subverted” Catholic art.
pjackk was unbanned because @3liza finally got through to staff about a fucking weird bug with the support form that got the metal bastard banned because it claimed he posted some Bulgarian nationalist shit (this was not a real post that pjackk ever posted). other high-profile bans like @garaks-padded-bra was hit with the same bug and its being investigated
there was a new feature added that lets people see your comments on your blog page in a tab like your likes or followers. everyone was mad that it was not toggle-able. it was actually toggle-able.
pjackk was either banned again or he deactivated and we'll know in 30 days when the deactivation grace period is up and his blog is renamed
I know there's a popular headcanon that Grace's crew died because of feeding tubes malfunction (based on the paperwork Grace was doing right before the explosion), but — in the book he specifically says that even after the accident he kept dealing with that same paperwork on minor Hail Mary issues, so I doubt that feeding tube problem was left unaddressed. May I offer instead:
Grace was put into coma by the people who cared about him. They (especially Yáo being Yáo) probably double-triple-quadruple checked everything. They watched him sleep for those first few days — I doubt they went into coma immediately after leaving Earth's orbit. They probably talked to him, assuring him that he'll be okay.
Ilyukhina's coma procedure was probably supervised by Yáo. He made sure that everything was in order, but — he is just one man and he is not a doctor. There was much more room for mistakes.
When Yáo went to sleep, he was alone. He had to rely on the technology completely.
Genuinely, I think the most publicly visible AI advance so far this year is how thoroughly and abruptly the "image generators can't do legible text" problem has beem fixed.
For those who haven't been paying attention, this is a recent ChatGPT output. It can do this sort of dense sensible text in images totally one shot, so don't rely on bad text to identify AI images any more.
Here is the entire interaction that produced this image:
I've seen other people do much more sinister things with this! You can produce 100% realistic fake screenshots of news articles, tweets, that sort of thing, if you can convince the bot it's kosher to do so.
izzy806
gummygunk
discoholicmusic
2087
vaporwave
annaxmalina
