belovedeagle

But it is: bringing the new stack into the cache, and eventually flushing the dirty one back to memory, is essentially the same as copying it.

> if it was smart it would have figured out that the value never was initialized.

But that's false, which just goes to show that the compiler writers know way more about this than you do. There's nothing stopping this from being linked into a binary which doesn't even call main, or which calls NeverCalled, etc. And I bet you will also insist stamping your feet that of course programmers should be able to construct function pointers - to functions like, y'know, Never called - from arbitrary bit patterns. You know nothing, but you're convinced you know so much more than those stupid compiler writers.

They did. "Undefined" doesn't mean "unconsidered by the committee", it means "do what you must for optimization".

And? This is only "unfair" if you assume that people should be taxed as a percentage of their income, but by moving to consumption taxes we discard that assumption.

Your conclusion is entirely unfounded. Returning the same result for the same input does not in any way refute the claim that it's random. It could just as well seed the RNG with the input or any number of other implementations.

Indeed, this is "guilty even when proved innocent".

> There are no ... Windows subdistros

That's a pretty naive trust in Microsoft's branding/marketing team. Of course there are heaps of different Windows distributions. They don't necessarily differ as much as, say, Ubuntu vs Gentoo, but they do differ.

> This is obviously not acceptable in a society that considers itself "free speech". It's free from legal consequences but when you shut opinions down due to "other consequences" you end up with the same result.

Which is exactly why the principle of free speech (as opposed to "the first amendment to the US Constitution") doesn't just apply to legal consequences, and free speech absolutely does require freedom from some consequences.

Those aren't products. Google's main products are advertising and user data. They can't be monopolists in markets they're not even participating in.

I have been assured by innumerable statists that the government invented the internet.

But I'm not sure in what market exactly Google is a monopoly? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of advertising and big data companies doing just fine.

> should be split up

It may be weird that no one is arguing that (maybe it's just no one you're listening to, or being allowed to listen to, though?), but it's not weird that it's not libertarians. The notion that some people shouldn't be allowed to form voluntary associations with others because they got "too large" is anti-libertarian.

That said, "libertarianism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are becoming too synonymous. As a libertarian (but not an ancap) I have no love lost for big corporations; I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments that monopolistic corporations are bad for society in general. However, because we must stand on principles instead of feels, the relevant principle here is that we have no right to interfere with others' affairs simply because they've chosen to pool their resources into free association, massive or otherwise (assuming they are not interfering with others' liberties, and I don't think there's a genuine argument now that they are).

All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state (e.g., via regulatory capture) and thus by reducing the power of the state we will actually achieve the desired benefit (breaking up monopolies) without infringing on anyone's liberties.

And to top it all off, they demanded a protection fee in cash and goods (the device) in order to stop the illegal hacking.