They are “thin” monoprice patch cables. Corey at mactelecom uses them all over the place so I gave them a shot. They dont hold up to a “true” cat 6 spec but as long as they are short (like this, 6") they don’t attenuate the signal enough to be noticed.
In CUDA, the corresponding malloc cannot return the pointer to the allocated memory as runtime CUDA functions all return error codes instead. So the only way to “return” the pointer then without a return statement is to have a pointer given to that function by address, which means that you’ll have a pointer-to-pointer among its arguments.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by memory isolation here, but the basic idea is that if you have a pointer to something then you know where it is located in memory and you can write in it, that’s the whole idea of passing by address in C.
Now pointers themselves are merely variables. Yes they have a special meaning, they “point” to something and you can dereference them with the * operator, but at the end of the day they’re still variables. They have a physical existence in memory or CPU registers, and their content is simply the address to which you want to point. Once you accept this, then the idea of the address of a pointer (ie the location of the variable you’re calling “pointer”, and not the address it contains) is not strange anymore and you can perfectly have a pointer-to-pointer in order to, among other things, pass pointers by address.
In C if I give you a pointer to a memory address, you can totally overwrite what is in that memory address, even write a new struct in there. So you’re getting a “real” writable memory address. You could even write a different type of structs and break the program. You could tweak specific bytes.
In languages like Java or C# you aren’t given a reference to the memory address but a reference to the object. You can only write to the object using it’s own interface (methods) but you can’t say “I’m going to totally overwrite this memory address with a new object”.
If you receive an object in a parameter, let’s say a “Person person” object and you do something like “person = new Person();” you didn’t really overwrite the memory address. The original person reference that was passed in the parameter is still intact. You can only modify it with something like “person.setName(…)”.
So, with real pointers you can do more stuff, but higher level languages don’t want you to do that because it breaks some of their principles for what “good programming” is. In this case they are protecting encapsulation. You shouldn’t be able to mess around with the memory contents of objects directly, only through their interfaces. Encapsulation is safer because objects should expose how to operate them safely via their interfaces.
Quick example in straight C would be a cell in a matrix. The first pointer points to the row and the second pointer points to the cell in that row. This is am over simplification.
So that you can have an array of strings. It's useful to remember that in C arrays and pointers are exactly the same thing, just syntax sugar for however you want to look at it. There are a few exceptions where this isn't true however:
Argument of the & operator
Argument of sizeof
C11 has alignof which decay is a no-no
When it's a string literal of char[] or wide literal of wchar_t[], so like char str[] = "yo mama";
But int** is just an array of int*, which likewise int* can just be an array of int. In the picture here, we have int** anya that is an array of int* with a size of 1, int* anya that is an array of int with a size of 1, and then of course our int there being pointed to by int* anya.
I guess this is beating a dead horse but you can have pointers to pointers for 2D arrays.
The first pointer tells you which coulm you’re on. The second pointer tells you which is the first object of each column. That way you can iterate the columns without loosing a reference to the current column you’re standing on.
TL;DW it’s mostly marketing and fear mongering. Your cat doesn’t care and even with completely natural behaviors (like oh I don’t know, squeezing into prey burrows and clamping their muzzle around mice) they get their whiskers compressed all the time. Whiskers are touch receptors so the idea that they can’t be touched is kind of silly.
It’s funny: The linked article up top briefly brings up that some vets question it, but then immediately turns around and acts like it’s a foregone conclusion.
Another question: do you know what you UPS is pulling? Recently had a really good offer on one, but denied because power here is really stable and i thought i can safe the watts.
to my knowledge the UPS draws less than 5W… (maybe just phantom power for the LCD and small onboard controller) although I haven’t measured it in isolation.
No, whisker fatigue is mostly a myth. Like just put some thought into it for a moment, do cats care when their whisters touch stuff when they are lying down or sleeping? Do they care when they squeeze into a tight space or lay in a tiny box? Does your cat rub its face on anythingnand everything it gets the chance to? Then why would only thr bowl cause whisker fatigue?
Using a web browser on your phone is almost completely useless these days what with how messed up the formatting is and how many endless ads there are. The most irritating thing is how a lot of news sites don’t even both including images of their news stories. Probably to save the bandwidth. I’ve noticed stories which referred to photos or drawings and none were visible on mobile. Of all media formats, one would think a web browser on a high resolution screen would be a great one to depict images. Nope. At least not on a lot of sites. They probably prefer to use that space for more ads, I think.
I actually just stayed using kiwi browser since it’s a chromium fork that supports plugins on Android. Ublock and some other choice extensions are going pretty well for me so far
lemmy.world
Newest