This is why I've started moving towards embedded. There is something really nice about being back on a chip with <1MB ram and a handful of Mhz. I know it's really just a leftward shift of a curve though. By the time I am getting ready to retire in 20 years these little 40mm devices will probably be running 500B parameter models.
I love modules. Honestly. I advocate usage simply as a forcing function for upstream. Tooling support is iffy because usage is low. Usage is low because tooling is iffy. All of the major players in the build space have reasonably mature levels of support though. So it's one of those things were compilers have outpaced IDE.
Modules my guy. The words “modern” and “C++” don’t go together while using headers. Also your most basic implementation requires me to write 200+ LOC and add a dozen headers. Then it’s a ton of boiler plate code duplication for every function registered.
Basically what I am saying is - you need to place more abstraction between your code and the end-user API.
Why not make a templated getString<“message”> that pulls from payload? So that would instead just be:
auto sayMessage = payload[“message”].as_string() or
auto sayMessage = payload.getString<“message”>() or
std::string sayMessage = payload[“message”] //We infer type from the assignment!!
It’s way cleaner. Way more effective. Way more intuitive.
When working on this kind of stuff end-developer experience should always drive the process. Look at your JSON library. Well known and loved. Imagine if instead of:
message[“code”] = “JOIN”; it was instead something like:
Where I have found Claude most helpful is on problems with very specific knowledge requirements.
Like: Why isn’t this working? Here Claude read this like 90 page PDF and tell me where I went wrong interfacing with this SDK.
Ohh I accidentally passed async_context_background_threading_safe instead of async_context_thread_safe_poll and it’s so now it’s panicking. Wow that would have taken me forever.
Correct. No one is denying that Elon loves attention. Everyone knows Elon is really an acronym for 'Elon Loves Ostentatious Notice'. Its GNU'd and everything.
Right, but by upholding that there was no negligence in the alternative case they prevent the conditions in Wrongful Death of a Minor from being met. There is nothing left to argue.
Are you suggesting the lower court now over rules the upper court and say there was negligence? The upper court has already said there wasn’t. Just because it was settled in a side branch doesn’t reverse the decision or leave it up for discussion.
Yes. It applies to all unborn children. The central question presented in these consolidated appeals is whether the Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children -- that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed.
The circumstances of the case, that is that it involves death of embryos kept in a cryogenic nursery, is not material to the validity of the argument.
They did not say: even if they are embryos. They said all unborn children.
This does not mean embryos ARE children. That was not what was argued nor what the court decided upon. You are inferring meaning outside the scope of the ruling. They side stepped the part you are upset about. They are very, very clear that this is about unborn children. The word embryos only appear once - while discussing the surround context, not the finding of the court or the question they were answering.
Here is the text of the law:
(I paraphrased the recourse portion)
If the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either then (people can sue)
You need all three elements:
1) Death
2) Child
3) Wrongful Act/Neglience
If 1 AND 2 AND 3 then ACTION
Trial found 1 true, 2 and 3 false.
Ala SC said actually 2 is true, but 3 is still false.
Your reading makes no sense. “Yea its a child, so it doesn’t matter if there was negligence”. No. You need all 3.
They said: “We find lower court was wrong, 2 is reversed and now true. Since this now makes clause 3 open to discussion, we affirm that they were right in saying 3 was false. As a result the case is dismissed.”
The court did not rule on that. This specific law only says children. The defense said this case did not apply because these are embryos that had not been born. The court said that’s not a valid argument because the word children includes unborn children.
For you to then say, ohh well these don’t meet the development criteria is a different argument entirely. That was not the test proposed by the defense. Had they said, this does not count because it doesn’t meet a cell count threshold, then that would be something the court did not rule on.
We reverse the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims in both appeals (regarding the born/unborn). Because the plaintiffs' alternative negligence and wantonness claims are now moot (open for discussion), we affirm the trial court's dismissal of those claims on that basis.
The parties to these cases have raised many difficult questions, including ones about the ethical status of extrauterine children, the application of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to such children, and the public-policy implications of treating extrauterine children as human beings. But the Court today need not address these questions because, as explained below, the relevant statutory text is clear: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies on its face to all unborn children, without limitation.
Under the defendants' test, even a full-term infant conceived through IVF and gestated to term would not qualify as a "child" or "person," because such a child would be "unborn" (having never been delivered from a biological womb).
Unborn children are "children" under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics. It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy.
As I have stated above this is a very narrow ruling. About born or unborn. And what’s more it doesn’t even rule in favor of the families. It upholds the dismissal of the case on other grounds.
You are all trying to apply this to cases that they explicitly side stepped! The ONLY questioned answered by the court is: Does this law apply to unborn children? Nothing more.
Yeah man, I don’t disagree with any of that. But that is not what the ruling is about. The law, as it is written, only says “children”. This was a law written in the 1800s. It does not consider any of that.
The defense said, “hey you should throw this out because that thing isn’t a child, it hasn’t been born yet. Also, even if it was a child, they signed waivers and accidents happen.” The court said, “you can’t just say this doesn’t count because it hasn’t been born yet, but your right about the other stuff. Case dismissed.”
They did not rule on the number of cells that constitutes a child because that was not the argument. Here is the pseudocode:
Defense: If(!born) then child = false
Judge: Error
Media: mind blown
You: ‘If(cells <= 10) then child = false’ works on my machine
Negative. The court actually upholds the lower courts dismissal of the case.
It simply holds that the word “children” in a law written in the 1800s includes the unborn. That is that an insurance company can’t argue that because this thing wasn’t born, it’s not a child, and they are immune from liability.
They cite partial birth mishap as one reason for that. Like if a doctor accidentally decapites a child during delivery, their insurance would still be liable. Or if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be held financially liable for both. Had they ruled the other way, that would not be the case.
The criminal statute had been updated in 2008 with different wording to clarify this matter.
Again, very very narrow ruling. Experts in a field made a nuanced decision that the media is hyping for views.
It was a very narrow ruling regarding civil liability for wrongful death as it applies to the word “children”.
Some insurance companies tried to say that these families had no financial recourse from embryos being destroyed because a certain law did not apply since they were not children.
They explicitly state that this does not confer criminal liability due to different wording in the law. It also states that this does not negate waiver, estoppel or affirmative defenses. It also upholds the dismissal of the case due to lack of wantonness or negligence on the part of the defendants.
This is the media blowing something up for click bait. To answer your questions in order: None. No. No.