3721
Off Topic / Re: 👌😎👍 THE 2nd ANNUAL CLIQUE CONTEST 👌😎👍
« on: March 04, 2016, 09:52:10 PM »
WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU ENTER THE CLIQUE:
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
3722
Off Topic / Re: Programming Megathread
« on: March 04, 2016, 04:30:09 PM »
urrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.
Last night, while doing programming exercises in C++, I discovered "Array Decay". Because arrays are just a fancy version of a pointer, when you pass them in as an argument to a function/method, they lose their array properties and are just treated like standard pointers. Normally this works fine; pointer notation allows you to use [] on it anyway. The issue is using Range-Based For loops for iteration over an array.
The Range-Based For loop looks like this:
for (tempType tempVariable : arrayName) {}
It's the equivalent of the foreach loop in C#. Each iteration of the loop, the tempVariable is equal to the current element of the array, and at the end of the iteration tempVariable is saved back to the element in arrayName. When your array and the range-based for loop are in the same scope, this works perfectly, however...
Because an array parameter is treated like a standard pointer, it loses certain necessary properties (such as array::begin) that the Range-Based For loop requires to work. Because there's no workaround for this and arrays don't have "length" property like in C#, you end up having to either manually keep track of the length of the array or hardcode a maximum number in and then break from the loop once it reaches some kind of terminator character.
Thoroughly frustrating.
EDIT: Should also mention; sizeof() correctly returns the length of your whole array in bytes when used in the same scope as the array. sizeof() only returns the length of the first element in an array in bytes when it is used on an array parameter. I was hoping to use simple maths (sizeof(arrayName) / sizeof(int)) to get the size of the array for this programming exercise, but that didn't work for the reasons I've said up above.
Last night, while doing programming exercises in C++, I discovered "Array Decay". Because arrays are just a fancy version of a pointer, when you pass them in as an argument to a function/method, they lose their array properties and are just treated like standard pointers. Normally this works fine; pointer notation allows you to use [] on it anyway. The issue is using Range-Based For loops for iteration over an array.
The Range-Based For loop looks like this:
for (tempType tempVariable : arrayName) {}
It's the equivalent of the foreach loop in C#. Each iteration of the loop, the tempVariable is equal to the current element of the array, and at the end of the iteration tempVariable is saved back to the element in arrayName. When your array and the range-based for loop are in the same scope, this works perfectly, however...
Because an array parameter is treated like a standard pointer, it loses certain necessary properties (such as array::begin) that the Range-Based For loop requires to work. Because there's no workaround for this and arrays don't have "length" property like in C#, you end up having to either manually keep track of the length of the array or hardcode a maximum number in and then break from the loop once it reaches some kind of terminator character.
Thoroughly frustrating.
EDIT: Should also mention; sizeof() correctly returns the length of your whole array in bytes when used in the same scope as the array. sizeof() only returns the length of the first element in an array in bytes when it is used on an array parameter. I was hoping to use simple maths (sizeof(arrayName) / sizeof(int)) to get the size of the array for this programming exercise, but that didn't work for the reasons I've said up above.
3723
Off Topic / Re: 👌😎👍 THE 2nd ANNUAL CLIQUE CONTEST 👌😎👍
« on: March 03, 2016, 12:26:44 AM »
the clique has no mercy for the sinners
3724
Off Topic / Re: 👌😎👍 THE 2nd ANNUAL CLIQUE CONTEST 👌😎👍
« on: March 03, 2016, 12:07:07 AM »
The happy couple on their honeymoon.
3725
Off Topic / Re: 👌😎👍 THE 2nd ANNUAL CLIQUE CONTEST 👌😎👍
« on: March 02, 2016, 11:43:31 PM »
TANGO DOWN
3726
Suggestions & Requests / Re: Looking for Several Old Mods
« on: March 02, 2016, 04:52:27 PM »
Unfortunately Kingdaro doesn't have Brick_Tire any more. Damn shame :(
3727
Games / Re: Steam increased their trading/market item hold time to 15 days
« on: March 02, 2016, 03:27:04 PM »
All I can say is "at least Valve is attempting to take action against a known problem." There's plenty of companies out there that have no issue allowing known security threats to continue because it's "too much work".
Is it the right solution? Maybe not. I still think that access to the mobile authenticator is easy (download an Android emulator or the Android desktop OS) and that if Valve is pushing as hard as they are to get users on to it, it's probably having a positive effect which in turn is making Valve more conscious about it.
Is it the right solution? Maybe not. I still think that access to the mobile authenticator is easy (download an Android emulator or the Android desktop OS) and that if Valve is pushing as hard as they are to get users on to it, it's probably having a positive effect which in turn is making Valve more conscious about it.
3728
Games / Re: Steam increased their trading/market item hold time to 15 days
« on: March 02, 2016, 03:22:10 PM »What's with the flaming here?I find it hard to believe someone can't see the exact reasons why Valve would push the app. Steam Support has a reputation for being stuff and any decent business support is going to want to improve that reputation by first trying to cut back on as much time-consuming work as possible so they can refocus and get that response time down.
Yeah, I swear. What of it? Tony, I've gotten mad at you and used even worse swears, so why is it an issue now?
3729
Off Topic / Re: BLF, what do I do (relationstuff)
« on: March 02, 2016, 03:11:51 PM »
The absolute worst thing to do in a situation like this is stay. These kinds of people rarely acknowledge your own problems, nor have an inclination of changing to help themselves.
I was in a stuffty relationship with a chick that was in therapy for "depression", constantly cut herself, got drunk frequently, broke into schools, cheated on me and overall was extremely pathetic. Just like you, I had to stop a bunch of her Self Delete attempts. Aside from the fact this was attention seeking on a whole new level, she also had a habit of forcefully ignoring my own problems and issues and instead wanted everything to be about her. I feel like your situation is somewhat similar.
The best thing you can do right now is cut it off. If you prolong this thing, she's going to get worse, and it's going to be harder for you to say no. Do it respectfully, in person, but do not just sit and wait for the "right" moment. You deserve better, and hopefully she's mature once she understands why her persona led to the breakup, if she ever does.
And as Dannu said, don't be manipulated by guilt trips. These kinds of people like to twist everything to fit their design even when it's not going to work out in the long run. Also, can confirm as Dooble said; my ex didn't off herself when we broke up. Sure, she was became more pathetic, but she's still trucking along.
I was in a stuffty relationship with a chick that was in therapy for "depression", constantly cut herself, got drunk frequently, broke into schools, cheated on me and overall was extremely pathetic. Just like you, I had to stop a bunch of her Self Delete attempts. Aside from the fact this was attention seeking on a whole new level, she also had a habit of forcefully ignoring my own problems and issues and instead wanted everything to be about her. I feel like your situation is somewhat similar.
The best thing you can do right now is cut it off. If you prolong this thing, she's going to get worse, and it's going to be harder for you to say no. Do it respectfully, in person, but do not just sit and wait for the "right" moment. You deserve better, and hopefully she's mature once she understands why her persona led to the breakup, if she ever does.
And as Dannu said, don't be manipulated by guilt trips. These kinds of people like to twist everything to fit their design even when it's not going to work out in the long run. Also, can confirm as Dooble said; my ex didn't off herself when we broke up. Sure, she was became more pathetic, but she's still trucking along.
3730
Games / Re: Steam increased their trading/market item hold time to 15 days
« on: March 02, 2016, 03:01:44 PM »I fear that theres a deeper reason to the mobile authenticator... Steam phone?You want me to let you in on the big secret? Okay, here I go...
IT'S FOR SECURITY YOU CUNT.
Here's the dealio. Activision-Blizzard and Square Enix have been using mobile authenticators (not phones, but physical dongle things you had to purchase) for a long time, and they've seen massive success in decreasing the amount of scams. Valve are obviously wanting to try and increase the security reputation and also reduce the amount of Steam Support account-related requests, and so they're trying to find convenient and cheap ways to help (stupid) users with this scammer issue.
I don't see you suggesting anything better that would actually work, so maybe just shut the forget up.
You won't be able to sell cards that expire like summer or winter cards because they will expire before you get them over to the market.And yet I feel like Valve probably already have an internal solution for this problem.
3731
Games / Re: Steam increased their trading/market item hold time to 15 days
« on: March 02, 2016, 02:55:35 PM »Chances if you can hijack an account without them noticing because they don't log in anymore then 15 days won't make a difference.If it takes Steam 7 days to initially respond to a support ticket, there's still 8 days before the scammer has successfully given away your inventory for you and Steam to resolve the problem (and I've heard both good and bad things about Valve restoring account access).
This isn't a deterrent designed to help those who aren't frequently using Steam (and I doubt people who aren't logging in are the ones with big inventories). It's a deterrent designed to help people actively trading/selling/buying who haven't taken precautions to prevent fraud.
By the time 15 days are up your item is selling for 1 dollar and no one is buying it because the price of that item dropped down to 20 cents.Presumably this is an oversight, and Valve will hopefully update the interface to allow price modification in the future.
3732
Games / Re: Steam increased their trading/market item hold time to 15 days
« on: March 02, 2016, 02:47:13 PM »Now there is trade market which is 15 days which makes no sense because market and trading are different things.Trading scams works because it means you can quickly dump the items from a hijacked account and then sell them on the market or trade them with unwitting people for additional credit.
Because of the restrictions on trading, scammers were then hijacking accounts, liquidating the product via the market (selling goods ASAP) and then using the Steam credit to either buy more expensive items/games for their own accounts or do other things.
3733
Off Topic / Re: Im 18 today at 9:00 AM EST
« on: March 02, 2016, 01:48:26 PM »
Have you attempted to act like you're 18 yet?
3734
Games / Re: Steam increased their trading/market item hold time to 15 days
« on: March 02, 2016, 08:43:48 AM »
I was originally angry, but after actually reading this announcement (instead of people's summaries of it), I discovered that the hold time increase only applies to those not using the Steam Mobile Guard Authenticator thingy.
Frankly, if you're not in a position to set up 2-step auth in this day and age, I don't have much sympathy for you.
Frankly, if you're not in a position to set up 2-step auth in this day and age, I don't have much sympathy for you.
3735
Suggestions & Requests / Re: Looking for Several Old Mods
« on: March 02, 2016, 08:34:40 AM »Found Item_Pot. Don't know why anyone would want it.
there's a download link for Brick_WMPlants here: http://forum.blockland.us/index.php?topic=292012.0You guys are on a loving roll. Amazing, super thanks to both of you two!
I also found Server_RPJailing and Server_Jail if you want to use either of those instead.Downloaded both earlier in my hunt, but thanks anyway :) I'm wanting to see what the differences are with Server_Jailing, which is what Kreon's Community RP uses (and that works well).
I couldn't find Server_DisableHammerDamage, but I could re-make it for you if you'd like. It'd be super easy.That'd be absolutely fantastic, thanks.