But if Sanitize has a return type of string_view, then returning the temporary variable should make a copy of it (or move it), right? And the string "foobarbazboo" is static so that's not being freed either.
And the while loop shouldn't even run at all since front() never equals ' '.
But it's not actually taken as a reference (with &) anywhere I see... and even if it's just internally referencing the (static) string, there shouldn't be any issue with that memory either right?
> But it's not actually taken as a reference (with &) anywhere I see...
That is effectively what is happening internally. A string_view is morally a pointer/length pair; that pointer has to be initialized somehow.
> and even if it's just internally referencing the (static) string
It's not. The function call constructs a temporary std::string from the string literal, but once that is done the contents of the temporary are entirely independent from the string literal.
Where ref comes from the temporary string constructed via Sanitize("foobarbaz"). When that expression is done, the temporary string is destructed, leaving a dangling pointer.
I think you may be confusing the (temporary) improved stock price with improved/recovered profitability? I see the (temporary) stock price recovery, as driven PURELY by valuation, i.e. an increase in P/E (instead of EPS).
Intel’s revenue is currently worse than 10 years ago, and gross profits are 2/3 of what they were around 2012.
The temporary price hike was caused by a huge temporary jump in relative valuation (probably because the US Gov started subsidizing).
I think you are presenting this as true, but all the evidence points to the bailout as having no effect. You aren't presenting any counter evidence other than just saying it worked and to wait.
An article that is the exact opposite of an announcement they've had their worst day on the market in over fifty years is far more specific than "Trust me it worked"
Bruh. You are not being specific. I was being specific.
The stock price recovered. This is a fact. From 20 to 60.
Cannot be argued.
The business will take time to recover. There is no other way. Either it takes time to recover, or it never does. One year is not remotely enough time to know.
I'm not reading an article to infer whatever point you're making. Either make your point, or admit that you are just being contrarian because you hate Drumpf
> Trump admin, to their credit, seem to have somehow figured this out.
> They bailed out Intel and the stock recovered.
This is not demonstrated. What did the Trump admin "figure out"?
Socializing private losses (especially if it's only temporary), is another problem, not a solution.
I've heard theories that he's an agent working for Russia and while I doubt he's some kind of spy it's difficult to imagine an enemy doing a better job than what's he's accomplished. He's repeatedly leaked classified information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump's_disclosures_of_...). He has physically destroyed the white house. He broke up or crippled the agencies we depend on. He has weakened our military by forcing out top US military officers, depleting U.S. munitions stockpiles, and draining their budgets. He's tanked our economy. He's decreased our freedoms and weakened our very democracy. He's sold off our national parks and public lands. He's isolated us from our allies.
Our enemies should be throwing him parades even if he isn't a foreign agent. He's the gift that just keeps on giving.
It's a common requirement. Chinese models in general, regardless of where they're hosted. The fear is backdoors, time bombs, or other unexpected behavior.
And these aren't technical discussions really, more of a risk management / political requirement thing.
I mean Chinese models or any models that are built atop of Chinese ones.
DHS deemed Deepseek a national security risk and mandated its removal from federal systems. Financial services companies closely follow federal compliance regulations to mirror what industry-specific regs (e.g. PCI, SEC guidelines, etc.) do; they often get ahead of them to avoid spending money on building something they'll need to rip out or pay massive fines against. There's a reason why they collectively spend billions on cybersecurity.
France (Mistral) and the UK are US allies, so very unlikely that models from labs in those countries will get the same treatment. Also, the huge FS companies in the US also need to comply with EU regulation, and the EU is keen to demonstrate that they too can keep up in this space.
You just need to give an instruction something along the lines of "any initial calculation or derived value must be computed through the use of a $LANG program."
Pretty sure the LLMs could implement tax calculations better than the average accountant, were they given the rules.
But I don't think they see it in ideological terms.
For them, the bottom line is that it's basically going to double cloud revenue over time.
How many times in history do you get to literally increase an existing revenue stream by 100%?
reply