My experience with multiple part time assignments, both personally and from other coworkers, is that the contractor gets more output for the money since the mental break of switching assignments fuels mental energy, not drains energy.

Isn't there people that actually needs less sleep?

And needing less sleep could be an explanation to why they reach these levels?

Is it expected to compile without the typedef?

Amazingly, it does compile. I believe the declaration that looks as though it shouldn't (because T1 isn't defined) compiles as a function pointer declaration, where the first T1 is the name of the variable defined and the second is, in syntactic terms, the name of the function. With the typedef commented out, you can delete the second T1 on that line.

Note that the type of a variable defaults to int in C, so you can write 'const a' instead of 'const int a'. The return type of a function also defaults to int.

Clang accepts it, but GCC does not. I suspect there's a bug here.

It fails because gcc appears not to support _Generic by default, but that's not the important part of the code. If you comment out the printf, or figure out which compiler options to set, gcc will compile it.

And on a none portable computer you could probably do it even faster. Maybe you need a laptop but there are tons of peoples using laptops that doesn't needs to.

I think that's pretty much what I said, right?

Not everybody needs a laptop, or a super powerful development machine. But if you want to process some stuff nice and quickly, while not being tied to any physical location, it's a totally reasonable solution.

The wonderful thing about a laptop is that if I want to go sit by a window for an hour while I'm working, I can just stand up and move. A desktop chains me to my desk, deep within the heart of a dimly lit cubicle farm.

Is the copyright notice really something that matters anything?

And if so doesn't forward dating your copyright claim invalidate your claim? At least if you don't include a starting year.

It has no legal effect. Many years back, a cocktail of copyright statements and "All rights reserved" were needed to enforce your rights, but this has not been the case for a long time.

> It has no legal effect

That's not quite correct in the US. A copyright notice may help you in the US if you sue someone for damages for infringing your copyright, by making it harder for them to prove that they are an "innocent infringer".

An "innocent infringer" is someone who did not know and had no reason to believe that they were infringing. If the defendant can prove that they are such (and they bear the burden of proof for this), it greatly reduces the lower bound on the range of damages the court can award.

Including a copyright notice nips that possibility in the bud [1]:

> If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2).

(The exception is for some non-profits, libraries, public broadcasters, etc., in the case where they thought their use was fair use and turn out to be wrong, and allows reducing damages to $0 for them)

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401

How in the world would the "innocent infringer" defense play out, considering that any and all copyrightable content is implicitly copyrighted at its conception? Especially considering that the declaration does not assist in distinguishing between copyrightable and non-copyrightable aspects within publication.

Saying that the user did not understand that content was copyrightable seems akin to claiming that they did not know stealing was wrong. It is the burden of the individual to know the laws they must follow, and not knowing them is not a valid defense to the best of my knowledge.

The U.S. has such a weird legal system.

Not good looking at all but, latest commit to that repo is Updated on Oct 11, 2012.

So how well does it reflect reality?

The official sources are published by Apple on https://opensource.apple.com

This repository is just a snapshot that somebody else prepared and uploaded to GitHub, but apparently it is not maintained.

Isn't the line bellow that line enough? /* wordexp is also rife with security "challenges",

My assumption was that those security "challenges" were related to expansion (wordexp()) per se; not to the way wordexp() was implemented in this particular case.

I would say that is the least significant part of the problem with tracking.

Cold boot, you keep using this word and you don't know what it means. Or is it me who have a screwed definiton of cold boot?

As defined in the article: "when a computer is reset without following proper procedures (what’s known as a cold/hard reboot)"

Even if you disagree, "cold boot attack" is the established name for the actual attack, the new aspect presented here is how to circumvent a certain firmware protection that would overwrite the memory on a cold boot to prevent that attack.

If you would give your definition we could see if it is right, too.

I thought the definition of cold boot was a boot from a powered down state.

Cold boot attack: An attack in which a running system is reset and information extracted from its memory that survived the reset. Seems like the article is using it correctly.