C looks friendly enough, but it has many nooks and crannies filled with undefined behavior (UB). If your program accidentally does something like overflow a signed integer, you're toast.

Raymond Chen has the best write up on UB that I've seen: <https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20140627-00/?p=63...>.

In addition to the "obvious" undefined behavior, strict aliasing is subtle and poorly understood in my experience. Consider the following:

    Foo ReadFooFromBytes(const char* data, size_t len) {
        Foo foo;
        assert(len == sizeof(Foo));
        foo = *(const Foo*)(data);
        return foo;
    }

    Foo ConvertToFoo(Bar bar) {
        return ReadFromBytes((const char*)&bar, sizeof(bar));
    }

The `ReadFooFromBytes()` function could exhibit undefined behavior, depending on the provenance of its pointer parameter.

If you gave it a pointer to a true array of chars, it's fine. If you use `ConvertToFoo()`, big bada boom. Truly baffling stuff, the first time you encounter it.

What about "my business model relies on copyright infringement"? https://www.salon.com/2024/01/09/impossible-openai-admits-ch...

There's CBOR, but it is not nearly as compact as the C in its name implies.

Not trying to be mean, but there's not much content here. It's a definition of the term "stringly typed" (from another blog) followed by the idea of using appropriate types.

I guess the author is "one of today's 10,000", as they say. Wiktionary attests the term from 2019 but I'm sure I've been hearing it much longer than that.

The post is a true web-log. Someone logged something they learned and put it on the web.

I first heard of it from Jeff Atwood in 2012, loads of fun concepts here I reference often. Favorite must be "shrug report"

https://blog.codinghorror.com/new-programming-jargon/

I was working with the Torque Game Engine in like 2008 which had a scripting language where almost all data was strings. Vectors? String of three numbers with spaces in between. Looking back I think it was kind of TCL inspired. But I definitely heard it called "stringly typed".

xkcd has a relevant take on this: https://xkcd.com/1053/

TLDR, we should totally be celebrating learning in public

That's not just a take, that's the origin of the phrase OP used :)

In a beautiful meta moment, you are one of today's 10k about the origin of 10k :D

I'm witnessing...something!

I don't think arthropods are capable of informed consent, despite what the author claims.

FYI, the author is a woman.

I think it is an A/B test, as you described, based on this part:

> We created a secret landing page. The product and design were identical. The only difference? One was labeled “Made in Asia” and priced at $129. The other, “Made in the USA,” at $239.

It's odd that they changed the text AND nearly doubled the price. They seem to attribute the conversion rate dropping to the text change, though.

The post is unclear on this. I'm not sure where the "secret landing page" came into play here. They even show a screenshot with both options visible.

And they also say: "The visitors were given the choice to either buy the Made in USA or the Made in Asia version."

A/B would be randomly showing either ONLY the USA with higher price to some people and ONLY the cheaper Asian one to others.

However, even that isn't apples to apples as the price is obviously different.

I'm assuming they mean "in aggregate, visitors were shown both options" rather than "each visitor was shown both options".

They might mean it, but between the very clear language in the sentence and the screenshot they provided, I doubt it.

Seems more likely they don't understand A/B.

Ah, you're totally right. The screenshot has radio buttons for selecting one of the two shower heads.

It's technically correct, but feels a bit forced.

> User interface designers aim to reduce cognitive load, improve ease of use, and guarantee access to all (Johnson, 2020).

Do they, though? Anecdotally, they seem to be primarily focused on optimizing engagement metrics, secondarily on adding gratuitous padding, and tertiarily on making all the buttons flat and harder to distinguish from the background. Rant over.

Can you explain the fallacy in more detail? It doesn't seem like a leap that if marriage is less popular, a larger percentage of the population is single.

They can be in a relationship (not single) but not married. I know people in relationships for 7+ years who haven’t married. That was far less common the further back you go.