If you want -3 -2 -1 0 and +3 +2 +1 0 from the same operation, you'll need something more complicated (either some nonsense to give you a signed stride/step value among other things — or perhaps just writing the damn loop twice instead of getting too clever.)
However, if you just want -1 to not iterate down to `std::numeric_limits<ssize_t>::min()` — and then invoke undefined behavior by signed integer underflow if `i` happens to be `ssize_t` instead of `size_t` — I'll note that the `i --> 0` will terminate immediately, unlike `i --` as otherwise seen. (unless you feed it `min()` exactly. Then it'll underflow a signed integer before the comparison, so that's still undefined behavior.)
I live in a state that votes heavily in one direction, most states are the same. Its fine for me to vote, but the winner of a majority of states is pretty well decided before a ballot is cast (by strong majority, I'm not claiming fraud).
If everyone who threw up their hands actually voted, the outcome would change. See also, the elections musk tried to buy in the last 18 months or so since he doged up the place.
> In 2012, on the 35th anniversary of the Wow! signal, the Arecibo Observatory was said to have beamed a digital stream towards Hipparcos 34511, 33277, and 43587.[45] The transmission consisted of approximately 10,000 Twitter messages solicited for the purpose by the National Geographic Channel, bearing the hashtag "#ChasingUFOs" (a promotion for one of the channel's TV series).[46] The sponsor also included a series of video vignettes featuring verbal messages from various celebrities.
What an inane, embarrassing "response", if the original was any attempt to communicate. (Sounds like it probably was not, but still...)
For context (since this reply seems to be getting downvoted into faded-text status at the time I am seeing it, perhaps in part because these days people might be seeing this as a political viewpoint for...reasons):
In Carl Sagan's "Contact" the first message we get from another civilization is a rebroadcast of a Hitler rally in the run-up to the 1936 Olympic games.
In the story, as one of the early examples of broadcasted television this rally happened to be the first broadcast from us that was detected by the civilization at Vega, and they rebroadcast it back to us as part of their larger signal inviting us to come say hi.
Effectively a coincidence that it happened to be fascist in nature, but causing some amount of panic in the story from people who read into this as the aliens being pro-fascist.
I'm hoping that any aliens that may or may not exist respect my contextual integrity and don't dox my Twitter.
But to be more serious: it is absolutely embarrassing we've gone from a world where a Russian and an American sit down at the science center to talk about their work and take questions to... this.
Keep in mind WHY collaborating on space was so big -- because the same technology that can put a man on the moon can put a missile anywhere on earth.
The phrase "exception that proves the rule" refers to an apparent exception to the rule's outputs actually being explained by it having divergent inputs, i.e. if you claim P=>Q, then the exception that proves the rule would be an instance of ~Q=>~P.
What's different about computers that makes this applicable here?
Both usages are common, and Wikipedia references both of them. But in the sense that it was being used, "rules can have exceptions, therefore this exception 'proves' the rule rather than falsifying it" is not valid, and is not consistent with either usage.
The term is often also used simply as claiming the existence of a rule by claiming the exception.
It's one of those terms where I am pretty confident that I see the original use more rarely than the technically incorrect variations to the point I'd hesitate to call them incorrect any more.
> This meaning of the phrase, which for Fowler is the original and clearest meaning ... This argument states if an exception exists or has to be stated, then this exception proves that there must be some rule to which the case is an exception
So no, OP used the correct definition and no wide spread usage uses ~Q=>~P. That's a weird logical formulation that was randomly concocted.
> So no, OP used the correct definition and no wide spread usage uses ~Q=>~P. That's a weird logical formulation that was randomly concocted.
No, most logically coherent usage of that phrase absolutely does reflect ~Q=>~P, which was not "randomly concocted", but was rather was determined via logical reasoning.
> Rule: It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation.
> Exception: computers i think are more affordable now than even 20 years ago, in bang for buck
> This proves the rule because if it's an exception to the rule, therefore the rule must exist in the first place.
No, a standalone claim that contradicts the premise of a previously claimed general rule does not "prove" that original claim.
If I say "it hasn't rained all week" and you respond with "but it did rain on Tuesday", you're pointing out evidence that falsifies the general claim about it not raining, not demonstrating an exception that strengthens its validity otherwise.
This usage only makes sense if the "exceptional" claim is formulated as an exception to some unstated assumption, but even there, does not actually substantiate the validity of that assumption, but rather just reveals that the assumption is being made.
Another commenter offered a good example of this: "no parking on Saturdays" carries the implied premise that parking is permitted on other days of the week: it's nature as an imperative statement that applies special treatment to a particular case implies that the general case is something else.
But "computers have become cheaper over the past 20 years" does not in itself imply any assumptions about general economic trends or other categories of goods, and certainly doesn't prove the validity any assumptions about either.
No I am not. What you're demonstrating is exactly the basis for why the new usage is spreading.
Poster 2 has raised a disagreement with the original claim. There was no implied rule. Poster 3 used the claim of it being an exception to imply a third rule that neither of the first two posters had claimed, as opposed to making a statement where the exception demonstrated the existence of a rule in the first place.
If you're going to make false claims and lie about my intent, then at least don't be entirely wrong while doing it.
If you're going to continue this thread you can talk to yourself - I have no interest in continuing a discussion when you start lying about my intent.
reply