I don't even care what it was about: people should, in any case, own their own bodies.
Most countries are past criminalising suicide, and self-harm is acceptable (as long as you are considered mentally able). Why is there a difference in risking one's health in every single way but by using psychoactive substances?
Especially considering that clearly the war on drugs was never limited to, or expanded to all substances capable of generating physical dependence.
However, C++ really isn't that hard to learn. Harder to learn than some alternatives, perhaps, but only like driving a stick shift is harder than an AT, but neither really qualifies as simply hard.
>It will, that's guaranteed by the standard. If it's not a standards compliant compiler/runtime/platform, you've got bigger problems.
No it isn't. It's a bad practice citing something you didn't read.
Standard compliance can be achieved on platforms without native 8-, 16-, 32- or 64-bit integers (signed and/or unsigned), and you need not simulate such integers in software, which is why all the (u)intN_t types are optional.
Little criticism, followed by a huge compliment. Usually shilling.
Considered “harder” by whom? Windows enthusiasts have certainly considered Windows to be more sophisticated since the first public version of NT, and more secure by XP SP2, at the very latest.
Most countries are past criminalising suicide, and self-harm is acceptable (as long as you are considered mentally able). Why is there a difference in risking one's health in every single way but by using psychoactive substances?
Especially considering that clearly the war on drugs was never limited to, or expanded to all substances capable of generating physical dependence.