It’s weird, like the whole point of saying “it’s not because of corporate greed” is to rehabilitate their image and not look like soulless ghouls, so then he chases it up with something that makes him sound like a soulless ghoul.

Money and power really do make people stupid.

Another concise and simple answer to Denuvo and DRM is “exterminatus”.

Yes, it’s called a typewriter.

deleted by creator

The for loop doesn’t return, it’s just that when control flows to the end of the function, returning is the standard behaviour. It has nothing left to do, so control is returned to the calling code.

The recursive portion is begun with draw(n - 1), but then you have a new for loop, because the same function has been called again. That’s what recursion is. Nothing in this function is non-recursive. It calls itself, so all of the code it contains could be happening from the initial call, or within a recursive call. When draw(3) is called, you will get 3 for loops. You will actually get 4 draw calls, but the last one will be draw(0) which returns immediately.

It’s confusing slightly because it works in reverse to what you’d expect. The operational part of the code - the part that does the drawing - only completes after the recursion is finished. That’s why it does draw(1) first, to make the pyramid right way up.

I don’t know that I’ve ever done recursion like this. It seems deliberately fancy and somewhat confusing for a new learner.

Imagine if you put the for loop before the recursive call. What would happen? You would draw three first, then decrease, so you would have an inverted pyramid. That would be easier to understand, but it would also not make a pyramid.

This video is a really good overview of the movement of warfork, it can be extremely fast.

A blanket rule against certain keywords sounds pretty silly to me. Break and continue are useful tools in the right situation. Sounds like it’s her preference that she’s decided to impose on the rest of you.

You could ask her what she expects as an alternative. You could show her code that uses it and ask how she expects you to rewrite it to satisfy her standards. Ask nicely because unfortunately just being right isn’t enough for some teachers, they have to like you too.

If she has a good answer, then do it that way as long as you’re in her class. If not well… sorry that’s just a terrible teacher.

Agreed. It’s incredible how bigots put up so much bullshit, that even the attempt to debunk it cedes a bunch of rhetorical ground.

You can see that with this woman, according to them she’s “offered” to give the medal back and “admitted” she’s not a woman, because by immersing her in their bigoted attacks they’ve managed to put her in a position where those words came out of her mouth and they could twist them against her.

Or in my comment I said she won no prizes and was raising money for charity, but even if she won prize money and trophies and did nothing for charity, that would be fine. That’s what it means for a trans athlete to compete. If they’re not allowed to win, they’re not really competing.

I think the saying goes that arguing with a bigot is like wrestling with a pig - you both end up covered in shit but the pig loves it.

“…offers to give participation medal back because she’s being targeted by transphobes and just wants the harrassment to stop.”

I mean, I assume that’s the reason, right? Why else would you give back a participation medal? It wouldn’t be out of principle because it’s a ridiculous thing to expect anyone to do.

I searched up this story after making the above guess and it was roughly right because these people are so damn predictable. Only the worst outlets are reporting on it, and they’re misquoting her horrendously. She didn’t “offer”, she said if the organisers want it back she’ll give it back. It was an acknowledgement that it’s the organisers’ decision, not hers.

She’s maintined the whole time that she’ll follow whatever rules are in place, including running as a man when the organisation requires it. Of course transphobes are using that as “proof” that she’s a man.

She’s also quoted in headlines as saying “I’m not a woman,” but it was sarcasm. She said, “I get it… I’m not a woman, I don’t have a womb.” She was characterising the hateful remarks she’s received and they twisted that and said it came from her mouth and even called it an “admission”.

This is the original article as far as I can tell: https://nypost.com/2023/04/26/trans-marathoner-glenique-frank-offers-to-give-back-medal/

It has the same shameless “14,000” fact-twisting in the headline, but unlike other articles piggybacking on it, at least it tells some of her side and doesn’t constantly misgender her.

She also says she won’t apologise because she didn’t do anything wrong, which she didn’t. She’s running for no prize and she’s raising money for charity, but the culture war needs victims I guess, so she’s fair game to these people.