This doesn't solve the harder problem: properly identifying bullying.
Bullies don't usually bully other people in front of their authority figures. Most "anti-bullying" policies in the past 25 years have the unintended consequence of fostering a more clever species of bully called the "crybully". People who are skilled at being assholes and manipulating authority figures into treating them as the victims.
In criminal law, increasing the odds of getting caught is statistically far more effective in decreasing the incidence of violent crime than increasing the punishment.
Other than that, I'm not particularly interested in the moralizing from either side about corporal punishment. Some problem children need mentorship, some just need consequences; most of it depends on their home life. Kids from abusive homes need to be moved to a safer environment and treated with therapy. Kids who are neglected or enabled by their parents need to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them and other people don't have to put up with their crap.
There's a crucial flaw in the dishonest "story" on this little web page of the Green Bay Packers being owned by the public: that "stock" is just a novelty piece of paper that carries no entitlement to a equity in a company.
When the Packers upgrade their stadium and charge higher prices for tickets, I can promise you that they won't use the profits to buy back your shares or pay you a dividend.
OP, I would strongly recommend you try to play devil's advocate against your own case before making it, so you have a chance to refine your thoughts and rebut at least the top 2-3 counterarguments. More than that, you would do well to understand the concept of Chesterton's Fence as it applies to engineering:
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.""
-G.K. Chesterton
#1: What you consider a "language" is one with its own official runtime. By your logic, Javascript is not a language either because the interpreter is usually written in C++ (e.g. V8, spidermonkey).
#2: Dogfooding a compiler and a runtime is common practice because most people believe that it will help the makers of a language identify bugs in their implementation or identify undefined behavior in the very definition of their language. However, every language must bootstrap from another language: most languages bootstrapped from a compiler written in C. If you trace the lineage from compiler to compiler to ... compiler, you'll most likely find that the second C compiler ever written was written in C and the first compiler was written in some architecture's assembly language. The same still applies for the new, new language of C99 which is less than half the age of C. C is so mature that rooting out new undefined behaviors is no longer a significant concern.
#3: libc is not just a "language runtime", it's the interface into the OS kernel for most operating systems. The runtime for every "real language" as you describe it ultimately uses libc. It doesn't make sense to separate the functions in the C99 standard from the OS's own syscalls and special-purpose user land functions call C standard library functions, and C's standard library relies on the OS's special functions. If they were separate libraries, there would be a circular dependency.
Think of C not as "not a language" but as a language that serves the unusual purpose of being the foundation for nearly everything else.
You have a point on integer types being a mess, but we have stdint.h for that.
Marking this as a WONTFIX should have gotten somebody fired at AMD. I find it hard to believe that at least one of their VPs doesn't frequent this site.
I don't normally call for people to get fired from their jobs, but this is so disgusting to anyone who takes even a modicum of pride in their contribution to society.
Surely, someone gets fired for dismissing a legitimate, easily exploited RCE using a simple plaintext HTTP MITM attack as a WONTFIX... Right???
By that logic, there was no value added in updating the syntax from ANSI C to C99: no reason to add double-slash comments, no reason to allow function-local variables to be declared and initialized where you use them instead of the top of the function, and no reason to omit a return statement for the main() function.
From your reasoning, it also follows that using infix notation instead of Polish notation for arithmetic does absolutely nothing to lower the learning curve.
Thanks for dealing in good faith and picking a reasonable interpretation of my comment instead of going "debate mode" and making a straw man.
Just to clarify, I definitely wasn't saying "everything should be written in C" or even merely asking the question "why not just use C for game programming?". I don't even think requiring core utilities shipped with an OS, like sed and awk interpreters to be written in C is necessary, and I'm sure I'll be excommunicated for that elsewhere.
I was just making a more general comment about making a language look familiar in terms of basic grammar to minimize the time spent in the initial phase of the learning curve.
I completely understand wanting to go with some code that "looks like" python. More people know how to use Python than C, which is really only for embedded programmers and systems programmers.
Really, this is a nice game scripting language you have here. All the good languages were made by their author for their author.
I'm just talking about the basic grammar of C. Scoping with curly braces, statements delimited using semicolons, the basic syntax for defining a function or a struct.
I'm just talking the same level of C familiarity that Java or Javascript went with.
Interesting project and all, but why does everybody out to make their own compiled language want to get away from the basic syntax of C so badly? Rust and Golang are the poster children of this, but it seems like every other language implementer feels the same way on matters which are of 99% personal taste and 1% functionality.
This is just one microcosm of the general pattern I'm picking on here, but what's up with this obsession with scoping via indentation like Python? It's true that it looks a little more like a todo list someone would write on a sticky note, but I don't think C syntax is the hard part of systems programming or video game programming, which is what the creator of the Tomo language does.
It just seems like these kind of design choices needlessly add a barrier to entry for people who want to climb aboard.
Then again one must of necessity, have a ferocious "Not Invented Here" streak to go through all the trouble of inventing a new programming language in 2025.
I'm glad someone pointed that out. They even have call and put options, and thousands of FPGAs in Chicago trying to arbitrage deviations from put-call parity from market open to market close.
I didn't misunderstand anything. Your little "network effect", as you have so pretentiously worded it assumes teenagers are only getting on social media for their classmates, not for all the other users on a social media site. You also assume a little government-made dumpster-tier firewall written by peons making $70k like "WebWasher" is going to stop them. It didn't stop me from opening up goatse, meatspin, or 2G1C, so your argument carries no water.
All they need is one classmate similar to most of us here on this site. Someone in their high school who will show them how to use a proxy or a VPN not for cred, not for reward, but just because "fuck it, why not?"
My grandfather was a farmer in the 70s-80s, and he used futures on about 50% of his crop every year. Just enough to make sure a bad year can't wipe out the farm.
Enforcement of that law is going to be a certifiable joke. My Chinese classmates back in undergrad in the early 2010s used to use a VPN to access their Facebook accounts when they went home for break. Like anyone else around here in their 30s, I didn't have much trouble bypassing "WebWasher" or its ilk in the 00s either. I have a better proposal to get kids off social media, hear me out:
In order to make a teenager stop doing something, all you need to do is show them videos of someone their parents' age doing it. Juxtapose a bunch of 40-somethings doing cringy little "TikTok dances" alongside people young enough to be their classmates, and they'll stop. Make another TikTok Cringe Compilation, but this time add more clips from middle-aged TikTok users.
My proposal might be insufficiently sophisticated and too actionable for the members of this community who think themselves to be righteous members of an enlightened class and who seek only to complain about current events to self-affirm their superiority. Nonetheless, I insist that anyone who will listen gives the following proposal consideration for the future of our children, whose FICA taxes shall pay for our retirements.
The big about textiles (curtains and bed fabric) functioning as insulation gave me flashbacks to my dad repeatedly complaining over the past decade about a couple small boxes of my stuff taking up space he "needs" in his 700 sqft attic.
I told him, "What's the big deal? It's free insulation during brutal north Texas summers. It's as good as vermiculite insulation minus the asbestos contamination!"
I only put about as much rigor into this as reddit PC builders making untested "gut calls" about thermodynamics, and I was mostly just being a smartass, but it's nice to see I had the same idea as English nobility who comfortably survived winters before the invention of HVAC as we know it.
Nice to see some proof I'm not completely full of crap.
The kind of vice-signaling Palantir employees do on this board is more pathetic than the guy who peaked in high school bragging about the time he woke up hungover in a pool of his own vomit.
"No really, I do consequential stuff! See, I met CCP premiers and shit, I supply analytics to help North Koreans assassins kill exiles living in the US! Trust me bro"
I've trolled so many Palantir employees since my freshman year in undergrad that if even 1% of their claims about their power and connections held any water, I would have been audited by the IRS at least once in my life and a "clerical error" would have happened with my car title leading to a weekend in jail for stealing my own car.
I only know 2 Palantir employees in real life, and they are both at least as lame as you would expect someone who says their uncle works for Nintendo to be.
One of them is married to a furry who cheated on him before they got married and supports "consensual love between adults and children", and the other displayed all the outward signs of an incel. The former looks like the old "Carl the Cuck" meme guy (Drew Pickles haircut and Frank Grimes glasses), and the latter told me some copypasta-tier story about how he was friends with "Chinese Princesses". I wish I had my screen caps of this conversation back in 2014, but I deleted Facebook a decade ago. It was bombastic compared to even the Navy Seal copypasta.
If I had to sum it all up, imagine a sysadmin for the Worcester, MA police department pretending to be Lex Luthor on HN for clout.
However, I still can't pinpoint what the value proposition is compared to using jails. Is there anybody around here able and willing to shed some light? I know I didn't use Cunningham's Law to start the conversation like a clever netizen but maybe, just this once, a good faith response to a good faith question is possible.