If SpaceX pays too much for it, other SpaceX shareholders have a case against SpaceX leadership. If xAI accepts an offer that is too low, other xAI shareholders have a case against xAI leadership. Given that the leadership is basically the same people, they are very well incentivized to come up with a valuation that is as fair as possible.
And this is not just theoretical, Musk has already been sued successfully once on a similar case, when his companies gave out too much free support to the boring company.
Mario Maker 2 has a "Check Point" system where the software remembers whether Mario has reached one of two "Check Points" in the course and if so resets Mario to that point if/when he dies. You can only have zero, one or two such "Check Points". This leads to two important phenomena
1. Antis. A Soft Lock is a situation where Mario can't win, but also can't die, this is extremely frustrating because the player must start over, losing any progress. A good course designer ensures this never happens. But a twisted course designer does so by making it possible yet extremely difficult to die in this situation, thus the art of the "Anti-Soft-Lock" or just "Anti". The player is tricked into entering a situation in which they must complete some very difficult tasks, not to win but just to die and keep playing from a check point they've reached.
2. Knowledge Check Points. With only two CPs, a really elaborate course must either stretch considerably between the CPs, meaning players who die between CPs must re-do a lot of work and that's annoying OR invent a way to re-use them. There are tricks to re-use exactly two CPs plus the "Red Coins" from Mario which are kept when Mario dies, but a cleverer trick is to just have the player learn something which changes how they will behave.
My favourite KCP is an MM2 level where the player can't win... until they realise there's a way to obtain an important power up right at the start of the course, which then changes how they tackle everything else and opens up a route to success. The dead end you'd reach if you don't know about this, reveals that hidden power up.
struct Dang : bits 64 // 64 bits wide, int total
{
foo : bits 5 @ 0; // 5 bits wide at bit offset 0
bar : bits 5 @ 0;
baz : bits 16 @ 4; // 16 bits wide at bit offset 4
tom : bits 11 @ 32;
};https://godbolt.org/z/vPKEdnjan
union Dang
{
uint64_t : 64; // set total width
uint8_t foo : 5;
uint8_t bar : 5;
struct __attribute__((packed)) {
uint8_t : 4;
uint16_t baz : 16;
};
struct __attribute__((packed)) {
uint32_t : 32;
uint16_t tom : 11;
};
};
The member types don't actually matter here so we can have a little fun and macro it without having to resort to templates to get "correct" types. #define OFFSET_BITFIELD_DECLARE(NAME, SIZE) \
union NAME { \
uint64_t : SIZE
#define BITFIELD_MEMBER(NAME, SIZE, OFFSET) \
struct __attribute__((packed)) { \
uint64_t : OFFSET; \
uint64_t NAME : SIZE; \
}
#define OFFSET_BITFIELD_END() }
OFFSET_BITFIELD_DECLARE(Dang, 64);
BITFIELD_MEMBER(foo, 5, 0);
BITFIELD_MEMBER(bar, 5, 0);
BITFIELD_MEMBER(baz, 16, 4);
BITFIELD_MEMBER(tom, 11, 32);
OFFSET_BITFIELD_END();
Highly recommend not doing this in production code. If nothing else, there's no compiler protection against offset+size being > total size, but one could add it with a static assert! (I've done so in the godbolt link)Edit: if you're talking about Zig, sorry!
I didn’t mention energy because energy has no relevance.
I’ve literally broken down crying because I really wanted to work but my brain refused to move. I was having such a great day and was really motivated. I spend hours and absolutely exhausted every bit of energy I had trying every advice that I’ve spent my entire life hearing. I could not get a single word out of my brain.
Nothing worked. I spent my entire childhood trying harder and got nowhere. I probably shouldn’t say this, but I get quite pissed off when people tell me to try hard harder.