Nothing in the C standard prohibits parts of the executable from (a) being outside the "program" and thus many of the limitations of the standard, and (b) running before main. Therefore on Linux and Windows and almost certainly OS X too, main is not called first. Anyone who knows anything about systems programming knows this or should. (See also: the 90 million My First Disassembly blog posts out there.)
But you know what else the c standard says? UB is UB. People in here complaining that UB is really unfair because it forces them to write correct programs are the ones bringing the real world into scope in this discussion. If you want to insist that we limit the discussion to the standard then you're just objectively wrong by definition, end of discussion. I was trying to be more productive than that.
Go back to JavaScript, dear. You'll learn about real systems languages when you're older.
Seriously. This just isn't how computers work. Main doesn't just get magically called in a vacuum.
I don't see how a play project writing a compiler which is going to solve all those problems other compiler writers couldn't solve, while you don't even have a basic grasp of systems programming, helps your argument that you aren't being incredibly arrogant and naive in the face of more knowledgeable predecessors.
> if it was smart it would have figured out that the value never was initialized.
But that's false, which just goes to show that the compiler writers know way more about this than you do. There's nothing stopping this from being linked into a binary which doesn't even call main, or which calls NeverCalled, etc. And I bet you will also insist stamping your feet that of course programmers should be able to construct function pointers - to functions like, y'know, Never called - from arbitrary bit patterns. You know nothing, but you're convinced you know so much more than those stupid compiler writers.
And? This is only "unfair" if you assume that people should be taxed as a percentage of their income, but by moving to consumption taxes we discard that assumption.
Your conclusion is entirely unfounded. Returning the same result for the same input does not in any way refute the claim that it's random. It could just as well seed the RNG with the input or any number of other implementations.
That's a pretty naive trust in Microsoft's branding/marketing team. Of course there are heaps of different Windows distributions. They don't necessarily differ as much as, say, Ubuntu vs Gentoo, but they do differ.
> This is obviously not acceptable in a society that considers itself "free speech". It's free from legal consequences but when you shut opinions down due to "other consequences" you end up with the same result.
Which is exactly why the principle of free speech (as opposed to "the first amendment to the US Constitution") doesn't just apply to legal consequences, and free speech absolutely does require freedom from some consequences.
It may be weird that no one is arguing that (maybe it's just no one you're listening to, or being allowed to listen to, though?), but it's not weird that it's not libertarians. The notion that some people shouldn't be allowed to form voluntary associations with others because they got "too large" is anti-libertarian.
That said, "libertarianism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are becoming too synonymous. As a libertarian (but not an ancap) I have no love lost for big corporations; I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments that monopolistic corporations are bad for society in general. However, because we must stand on principles instead of feels, the relevant principle here is that we have no right to interfere with others' affairs simply because they've chosen to pool their resources into free association, massive or otherwise (assuming they are not interfering with others' liberties, and I don't think there's a genuine argument now that they are).
All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state (e.g., via regulatory capture) and thus by reducing the power of the state we will actually achieve the desired benefit (breaking up monopolies) without infringing on anyone's liberties.
You're right; they're not all conspirators. However, as a non-expert I feel there is a good argument that there's probable cause that each account has evidence of the conspiracy.
But when you request the records of 1.3 million conspirators to riot and commit other terrorist acts, in order to find the 200 who actually did, that's quite reasonable. The stated goal of the website was terrorism (shutting down bridges, checkpoints, etc.). Every single account is quite likely to be evidence of conspiracy.
It's a website created for the sole purpose of promoting terrorist acts at a certain time and place. I think that's enough to say that every individual user account is suspect. I consistently reject government overreach but this isn't an example of that.
Not so; there's an easy and reasonable (/s) solution to the problem: only permit pre-approved speech. This can be done through AI and it will be difficult to circumvent.
However, a significant (not large, significant) proportion of Americans believe that the phrase "kill all the Nazis" is not hate because <reasons>, or at least is "justified hate", whatever that means.