That would get you almost none of the benefits of arenas and other types of allocators. Recommend https://www.rfleury.com/p/untangling-lifetimes-the-arena-all...

I know what arenas are but I don't see how passing something explictly vs implicitly matters except for which style people prefer?

For one, you don't want exactly one arena or allocator for all tasks.

Well you couldn't you just use a different one in that case? The variable would just be like a suggestion.

Most programmers don't prefer thread local mutable state over a single pointer argument. Especially for general purpose code (i.e., not specific to a single purpose/project). With the mutable state version, you have to clearly define which state you're using and when (which named allocator/arena variable), and if you're mutating it in place and then restoring it, there can be some pretty obvious issues.

Given this thread is completely off the rails from anything specific to allocators or arenas, and even Zig, I will now exit.

Suggest you read up on that law a bit more, they're not responding to targeting of porn, nothing of the sort.

I have read up on the law. They have no reason to worry and even if they did, given the extent of non-compliance in the porn industry, they are so far down the pecking order that this reaction looks like what it is: activist narcissism.

Fair enough, don't share your confidence, nor the service's reticence to visit in person (at least over this issue).

Incorrect, the last build is substantially faster and is using the "native" debug backend.

piper's amy voice is pleasant enough to me for reading articles, and it's instantaneous and trivial to use, just download the binary and model file.

Wow, this is much faster and higher quality than the meloTTS program I was using before, and has many more voices available... although it doesn't appear to support Japanese.

Thank you!

You can make this app yourself in an hour if you're on Linux and can do some scripting. Mockup below for illustration, but this is the beating heart of a real script:

  # whisper-live.sh: run once and it listens (blocking), run again and it stops listening.
  if ! test -f whisper.quit ; then
    touch whisper.quit
    notify-send -a whisper "listening"
    m="/usr/share/whisper.cpp-model-tiny.en-q5_1/ggml-tiny.en-q5_1.bin"
    txt="$(ffmpeg -hide_banner -loglevel -8 -f pulse -i default -f wav pipe:1 < whisper.quit \
      | whisper-cli -np -m "$m" -f - -otxt -sns 2>/dev/null \
      | tr \\n " " | sed -e 's/^\s*//' -e 's/\s\s*$//')"
    rm -f whisper.quit
    notify-send -a whisper "done listening"
    printf %s "$txt" | wtype -
  else
    printf %s q > whisper.quit
  fi

You can trivially modify it to use wl-copy to copy to clipboard instead, if you prefer that over immediately sending the text to the current window. I set up sway to run a script like this on $mod+Shift+w so it can be done one-handed -- not push to listen, but the script itself toggles listen state on each invocation, so push once to start, again to stop.

Email clients had the outbox that was local only and then you pushed to send them all. Hiding the outbox is why some of these things seem fiddly to use, despite being conceptually very simple. This model would seem to work very well at least for non-collaborative changes like IG posts.

Alternatively, reporting of cyber crime craters or is massively delayed.

Right, because it's so easy to hide an outage of that scale.

You're right that the biggies wouldn't really have that option. I'm sure they're not the only ones that get hit by such attacks, though. Smaller and non-public companies would have to think about it.

I'm not even arguing for a specific policy, but I didn't like how the framing of the post was about being "stupid" enough to break the proposed law. It wouldn't be that simple.

It certainly has a valence if you're in Gaza, etc., and this software is typically found in phones in the region.

The reviewer gets very snippy over style things that likely would not matter to him if the substantive content was different, but I think this review is essential reading along with the book: https://thebaffler.com/latest/narrative-napalm-kulwin

The core of the critique remains on substantive issues.

It would be helpful if you would explain why you think it is surprising or confusing or objectionable or whatever else inspired you to ask. Also helpful would be examples that you think are similar in some way, but that are not surprising, etc.

As is, your question is practically impossible to answer without just pointing you to the ICANN process.