@AlexandreVaillancourt I am helping out an organization I am involved with. They rent out their space. Their website has the event schedule from an embedded Google calendar and I want users to be able to interact with it. But it's read only.
Well I have very limited dev experience and none professionally but I know myself. I need variety. Constantly. I have my whole life. I doubt it will change with a career change.
Well I don't want them to create an event
I want to generate a form for them to request the date
Using the calendar is meant to constrain the user to picking from only available dates.
Reminds me of a summer job I had: forklift truck operator for a beer company. The job was ok. But I met some guys that really looked depressed and/or dead inside.
Some of my colleagues had been working there for some time (10 years) and were this close to have their permanent contract, with all the benefits that come with it. But they were we're screwed. "I had that as a summer job at first. I have a bachelor's degree in engineering. Do I spend the rest of my life with that big cash in 2 years, or do I start all over again from the bottom?"..
Yeah, for the summer it was nice. Night shift. Lines broke down once in a while, and no one was really in a hurry to fix it, so it happened often that we sat by one of the garage door just enjoying the mild night temperature.
Yeah. You use the tool, and you realize that it does not give the expected result. Quick look at it to understand why, and BAM, you realize you're fixing the bug.
I'll try and see if I can create a pull request for the original repo
See Strategies to Defeat Memory Editors for Cheating - Desktop Games
Fine question, lots of interest, but closed after 8 years as "too broad". Is that the right action?
Also, it did get edited recently, yet the editor fails to even correct a dead link where the OP posts a link to their discove...
Like how JSLint was made based on the opinions of the dude who wrote it, many of which were actually good ideas but some of which not everyone agreed with.
Alternately there might actually be something wrong with those classes that we're unaware of.
I'm aware of the issue. The virtual functions mean that inheriting from the class is intended. If you then dynamically allocate a derived object, pass a pointer to base and delete it it's UB because no virtual destructor.
But passing around raw owning pointers should never be done. Instead you pass, say, a reference to a base around without implicitly passing ownership and you end up deleting the derived object directly which is fine.
So arguably this defends against one of the many issues you get when doing it wrong while prohibiting doing it right.
