What would you want to happen when an object that's on the stack is moved? Do you want its destructor to run, or not? If not, how exactly do you want that to no longer occur? And what do you want to happen if the stack object is moved in multiple places? How willing are you to pay a performance or UB penalty for these?

> How willing are you to pay a performance or UB penalty for these?

OP wasn't even able to frame an actual problem. So why is this blend of vacuous criticism even entertained?

If that's the issue you're facing, consider clang-query, e.g.: https://godbolt.org/z/bfG94qGan

  match cxxConstructExpr(hasDeclaration(cxxConstructorDecl(isMoveConstructor(), unless(isNoThrow())).bind("throwing-move")))

You can put extra constraints on the caller if you'd like (e.g., isInStdNamespace()), though it's less trivial. Happy to help write something if you have a precise idea of what you want to match.

Between ICs and managers, which ones more commonly left the meeting room early vs. on time/late?

Windows 11 is fast enough if you... disable a million things on it that >99% of users wouldn't know when/how to, or wouldn't want to. Definitely depressing.

Can you expand on this? For example details on any tools to do this. I've been trying to disable features I know use resources and aren't needed but the native UIs to do it are hella confusing and feel purposely useless.

Google "windows 11 debloat reddit". There are several tools:

- https://github.com/Raphire/Win11Debloat (recommended elsewhere in this thread)

- https://christitus.com/windows-tool/ (I used this one a couple weeks ago, seems to work well)

But seriously though, learn to fish. The answers aren't hard to find if you look, know what to search for, and are at least somewhat discriminating in your investigation.

I say go one step further and learn to fish harder and don't use any of these scripts. I can't even imagine trying to debug an issue on my machine after running one of these "makes arbitrary changes" scripts.

Do it all manually if for no other reason than you know all the changes you made and know where all the different settings actually are.

Indeed... I've made all the changes I want manually, and a lot of them aren't even things any of these scripts do anyway.

The Chris Titus utility has worked very well for me. I used it to de-bloat Win 11 after I upgraded the OS last year.

I run Win 11 on an old tiny NUC PC that has Windows 10 before - now it does seem faster, is very stable and is not so annoying.

One thing: AFAIK you need to have the Windows 11 Pro version for the best de-bloating results.

Having fished I have found the fish hard to catch so thought I would ask from another fisher.

Sure thing. Probably the highest-RoI changes performance-wise (there may be negative implications for security or functionality, obviously proceed at your own risk) are to disable the various services and drivers that belong to either Windows Defender or the various filesystem filter drivers on your system. You can't disable everything (expect a freeze/crash if you disable the wrong ones) but you can disable most.

That, and switch back to the classic GUIs (like with OpenShell) so you don't have to deal with the laggy new UIs.

Also friendlies for the record the person I was responding to mentioned millions of settings, which while hyperbolic, you and I know means just hard to find so please share all fishing tips and other notes.

For the record I am also with you that using WinDebloat is not the best way for the simplest reason that it all seems arbitrary.

> disable a million things on it

I simply stayed on Windows 10 and I don’t seem to miss any feature thus far lol

What's the point when they will be all silently re-enabled by the update application?

I mean, the point is to make it usable. You can set up scheduled tasks where needed. I haven't had to re-disable stuff after that, but I've jumped through a lot more initial hoops than most people are willing to.

I tried this when Win 7 was new, and it worked great. Then I tried it when Win 10 was new, and it was a complete useless waste of time. In a week it was too slow to use again.

I still haven't used Windows since Win 10 support ended, and have no idea how bad Windows 11 is for people to declare Win 10 "super fast" all over the internet. But I don't have any hope it will accept any setup I want. Win 10 already didn't.

Win 10 IOT LTSC is supported for 6 more years, so support didn't really "end".

That being said, W10 (or W11 for that matter) will never be as fast a Win 7 was on an SSD in the 2010-2020 era, even with all the hacks and debloat scripts available in many places on the Internet.

Tangent, but you might want to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tuS1LLOcsI

Regardless of the powers that be, I don't see how it's possibly going to deal with the lack of water. Does a solution exist at all?

I came here to comment on this specific issue. The level of unsustainable groundwater extraction and inefficient consumption by agriculture and industry in Iran is just wild.

> The level of unsustainable groundwater extraction and inefficient consumption by agriculture and industry in Iran is just wild.

It's an important note that middle America is also currently speedrunning unsustainable levels of groundwater extraction and inefficient consumption by agriculture and industry.

They've just not yet hit dust .. but they have achieved significant depletion and the projections aren't good.

Interestingly both the Saudi's and the Chinese operate sizable ag operations in the US and export that s/water/food/ back to their home countries.

Extract resources and move on. Smart of China and Saudi to poop overseas.

Not sure what you're talking about here..?

Europe (Denmark) has forces in Greenland currently.

But Europe as a whole also has no chance to defend Greenland no matter what they do if the US really decides to take it by force.

Europe has inadequate long distance power-projection to put up any kind of a fight there (if not being assisted by the US, which of course it wouldn't be in this case).

I'm American, but this reply certainly isn't me being jingoistic or pro-American. I fucking hate what we are both doing and threatening under Trump with every fiber of my being and I think it ultimately is going to make America a far weaker failed empire within a world that is deeply unstabilized for no reason other than to stroke the ego of a malignant narcissist with no understanding of second order consequences.

What I'm saying is I think there's a decent chance the US wouldn't actually engage in significant combat over Greenland. What I think the US is betting on is that there simply won't be any meaningful military resistance at all. (They basically said exactly this.)

Therefore, if Europe sent enough forces and indicated they would actually fight instead of capitulating, that would probably be their best bet at preventing Greenland from being annexed. Realistically, this needs to be more than whatever tiny(?) amount of forces Denmark already has there. They'd probably need assistance from other countries. You essentially need to be reading headlines about warships from some European countries heading to Greenland for this to have an effect, IMO.

US starts conducting military excercises

Then expands its existing bases without telling or asking for the rubber stamp

Then starts mining

They don’t need to fire a shot, and Denmark isn’t going to fire first.

No. You make it seem like Europe has to just roll over and take whatever happens without even a proverbial fight. That's not how it needs to play out at all. There's a lot more they could do if you get a little creative.

Let me outline one possible way I think Greenland/Denmark/Europe could proceed here that doesn't require just capitulating:

- Station more forces right now to make it clear they would defend Greenland militarily. Get as many NATO countries to join as possible. Probably better to stay closer to their own civilians instead of going near American bases, I imagine. This is critical so that nobody gets a chance to claim they lost by default due to not even meaningfully attempting to defend the territory.

- If the US starts expanding its military activity... either ignore them and wait out this administration, or file a lawsuit in the US (and possibly elsewhere, wherever feasible) and see how courts respond, if for no reason than to put everyone on the official record. [1]

- If the US starts sending civilians to mine or whatever... send their own unarmed law enforcement to stop them, probably while livestreaming the whole thing globally. [2] File additional lawsuits every step of the way. [1]

- Wait for US courts to respond. Appeal immediately and get SCOTUS on the record. [1] If the response is negative then proceed to attempt enforcement under their own laws.

- If US law enforcement fires their first shot -- send their own armed law enforcement to respond. File more lawsuits as much as possible at every step and wait for courts to respond.

- If US military gets involved and starts firing -- send military (their own + as many other NATO countries as would be willing to join) to respond accordingly. Yes it will risk some lives, but there's a decent chance the US won't shoot NATO allies. The whole bet seems to be that there will be zero physical resistance to begin with. And if they do respond, it's important for everyone to actually see that.

If they play their cards right, I actually think it's quite likely Greenland/Denmark/Europe would win this fight, quite possibly before anyone gets injured. But they really need to play by the books and exhaust every single peaceful avenue available to them before letting combat power decide the matter.

FWIW, I can think of other ideas too. But I think this should be plenty enough to get my point across that this isn't a necessary loss.

[1] For whatever it's worth, the current US administration is still engaging the judicial system. As insulting as it might feel to other countries' sovereignties, utilizing this is currently their best option. They need to get the US on the record in domestic court about exactly which laws it recognizes and which ones it's willing to break. There needs to be zero ambiguity to everyone, especially Americans themselves, who exactly is breaking which laws in whose name.

[2] It needs to be on undeniable record who started whatever ends up happening.

They can't join NATO without unanimous consent. Which includes the US's.

There's no official NATO support of Ukraine, either. Ad hoc action by NATO members can get around unanimity.

Please go read Article 5. It does not require a military response. I don't know how so many have been misled to believe otherwise. The text is right there.

It obliges country to assist.

Yes, did you read the whole thing?

"The Parties agree that [...] if such an armed attack occurs, each of them [...] will assist [...] by taking [...] such action as it deems necessary [...]"

Each party gets to act however it deems necessary. Which could be, you know, "tweet angrily." Or "do literally nothing."

Memory also has a seek penalty. It's called a cache miss penalty. It might be easier to think of them in general as penalties for nonlocality.