$750/$1160 is ~64%. The common definition for affordable rent is ~30% of monthly wage[1] (based on some quick google-fu).
[1] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/special-topics/files/...
HN user
$750/$1160 is ~64%. The common definition for affordable rent is ~30% of monthly wage[1] (based on some quick google-fu).
[1] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/special-topics/files/...
if( DoSomething() )
goto fail;
else if(DoSomethingElse())
goto fail;
goto fail;
else if(DoSomethingOtherThanElse())
goto fail;
You get a syntax error at the final else-if. A better way would probably be: int err = 0;
if(!err)
err = DoSomething();
if(!err)
err = DoSomethingElse();
if(!err)
err = DoSomethingOtherThanElse();
if(err) goto fail;
I would prefer chainable commands that abstracts out the error checking though. err = Chain(DoSomething).Then(DoSomethingElse).Then(DoSomethingOtherThanElse);I'm partial to the "t33nz 1o1 \o/" cipher.
input: correcthorsebatterystaple
output: ~~krct^hrs333bttstpl$$:)
input: password
output: lulz!isma:PASSWORD#sorrynotsorryIn terms of huge blows to WhatsApp, nothing beats the original[1] leak which showed that WhatsApp was using IMEIs as a password.
That didn't stop WhatsApp from growing into the behemoth (that its acquisition price states) it is.
[1] http://samgranger.com/whatsapp-is-using-imei-numbers-as-pass...
That it uses the 'same' symmetric key for all users is what has everyone concerned. Coupled with the fact that WhatsApp stores your chats on external SD cards [1] without access controls, any APP you have installed can access and decrypt your WhatsApp chat history using this key.
[1] http://bas.bosschert.nl/steal-whatsapp-database/
This was on HackerNews a few days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7380136
Forced obsolescence -- Microsoft learned from Windows XP.
When I did Operating Systems in University (in a group), I remember distinctly only 3 bugs that we had difficulty debugging:
* re-using a loop variable from the outer loop in an inner loop (damn you `int i`!)
* putting a char[256] on the stack when the stack size was only 256 bytes and getting stack corruption (this one wasn't me, thankfully)
* signed vs unsigned code being passed between user mode and kernel mode causing problems (no idea why it was causing issues; i just made it all unsigned and the issue went away)
In hindsight, -Wall would have probably caught everything and saved a couple hours of "wtf" at 2-3 in the morning.
Often the simplest things are the hardest to discover.