how is this click bait? its not sensationalist in anyway what so ever.

It is not as you say.

The article suggests that Malloc + Memset is slower than Calloc.

Malloc will be faster depending on your use case. If your plan is to eventually call memset. Then just use Calloc, otherwise malloc will be faster all the time.

n00b question: Why would you not memset? I would assume you'd want to start with all zeroed memory in almost all cases.

Not always, you could be planning on filling the data with something else. Very common to do that.

I.e.: reading from a file or copying memory?

They use the term Hackintosh in their FAQ.

Maybe they refer to hacbook to make it seem more like a brand of laptop/machine rather then just the general term hacintosh.

I dont think he said anything about default.

contex context CONTEXT CONTEXT

No two situations are the same. If the behavior can be corrected go for the HR route. If the guy seems like a pretentious idiot, then lawyer up. Its the managers job to assess the situation and act accordingly. If its affecting the team, then something has to be done, which course of action he takes is on him to see if anything can be done.

No one here has all the pieces to judge what the guy should have done. We can give advice, or different perspectives but this michele girl is just about as qualified to give advice as this alleged patio11. This blog is less about the actual situation then just trying to up one patio11 it looks like.

Its crazy that people think that throwing out documented statistics and facts is brainwashing.

I hate tinfoil hat conspiracies. Its starting to plague society and get people disconnected from problems that need immediate attention.

Its good you dropped the subject, there's just no reasoning with them.

It would be good to remember that a vast majority of people don't respond to reason. They respond to emotion. If you make someone feel good about your argument, they will agree with your argument.

It seem the more likely one is to want to help society, the less likely that person understands this fundamental aspect of human nature.

And so somehow the ones who really GET IT are the ones in power, and the ones who don't want to make anything better.

It's so refreshing when you find a persuader in charge of everything who also wants to make everything better, like say Duterte in the Philippines, for example.

The ones who get it are also the ones who stick with the concept of doing good long enough, to learn the facts you mentioned.

Dropping the subject isn't always the best idea. It's only a good idea if they're unreasonable individuals. You can often have very interesting conversations with well-reasoned but poorly-informed people.

It seems the internet is rewarding more and more those who can manufacture outrage, with clicks, likes, karma, affirmation, etc.

It's no wonder then that it pervades into peoples lives, shaping their world view and even their presidential candidate selection.

It seems papers were still published, but government scientists were not allowed to say whatever they wanted to the media outside of what they said in their scientific papers.

I don't presume to speak for the organization I work for or the industry I work in.

Title isnt misleading. The title literally said what its content contained.

A vegetarian diet carries a certain implication, specifically that we're speaking about such a diet in one person.

"Widespread vegetarian diets among a population could cause changes over time" is wholly different and apparently more accurate.

The implication is subjective.

The title said "A" Vegetarian diet. It never referenced whom, what gender or the scope of the study, so in a literal sense, the title wasnt misleading at all.

I took the implication "A" Vegetarian diet, as in any or all contexts with in a long time period.

"A" implies that the effect would be felt in a singular case.

Not if you know the difference between genotype and fenotype.

And the Venn diagram for the target market of this website excludes those who do.

*phenotype

A title can be literal and be misleading. this is the role of connotation and context.

"Why are these better employees"

He just explained that to you. The people who actually work hard and have goals will actually want the minimum wage jobs because now its more manageable to live off of.

A university student who needs to pay rent, groceries, a car, etc. Cant afford to live off minimum wage so they want the better paying jobs which may not exist cause companies want to get away with the most profitable scenario which is paying employees the absolute minimum.

That last statement wasn't needed, no body has time for ad hominems.

No, he explained why the labor force would go up - some people won't work at $7/hour but will at $15. That's not the same thing as these people being better employees.

...want the better paying jobs which may not exist cause companies want to get away with the most profitable scenario which is paying employees the absolute minimum.

Yet most jobs in the US pay far more than minimum wage. Why would they do this if paying minimum wage is the "most profitable scenario"?

Because turnover is expensive and you want people to be satisfied enough with their jobs not to leave.

I think what hes referring to is that good skilled people will actually want the minimum wage jobs since they cash out the same as the harder earned jobs that require more effort to get into.