Just your average being, of some form.
They state they take inspiration from Tor and IPFS, so there are added transport layers below the top layer “P2P” that obfuscates ones IP address. It’s nothing new really, and I’m honestly not sure what the advantages are over something like I2P, which largely doesn’t suffer from Tor’s issues of node ownership as there are no guard or exit nodes to own (unless expressly configured), while also being faster overall.
Most of my hobby programming is in ANSI C and C99, so I’m unfortunately far too aware of the weird and counter-intuitive things the C and POSIX standards say. :P
clock() is fantastic for sub-second timings, such as deltatimes in games, or peripheral synchronization, which matches the use case you mention very well. I recommended time() over it as OP’s use case is for calculating the amount of hours a user has had their software open, and unix timestamps are the perfect mechanism to do that in my opinion.
Using clock() solely for delta values is absolutely a valid approach, as stated. The issue is that clock_t may not be large enough of some systems to safely keep you from an overflow, especially with arbitrary values. Additionally, some systems will include the time children processes were alive in subsequent clock() calls, furthering possible confusion. These are reasons why I would avoid clock() in favor of time(), even though your concerns are absolutely valid.
At the end of the day you have to determine which style of unpredictability you want to work around. Dealing with the times(), clock(), and clock_gettime() class of functions opens you up to managing what the kernel considers time passed, and what is accumulated vs what is not. While using time() can have shifts in time according to upstream NTP servers, as well as daylight savings time.
I would also make the argument that if an NTP server is adjusting your time, it is most likely more accurate than what your internal clock (CMOS or otherwise) was counting, and is worth following.
Professional on a haitus here. Fully self taught, done a ton of hobby projects, most of my fleshed out ones being in either C89 or C99. Most recently has been a calculator application for myself in X11 too brush off the rust on my X11 knowledge, as well as a Lemmy client library for C.
This is correct, however it is important to note that the C standard allows arbitrary values at the beginning of the program. The manpage does a better job explaining it.
Doing a bit of research, it looks like the POSIX time_t time(time_t *dest) function (man) is available on Windows (see here). So I would recommend that over clock_t clock(void) as it will operate more consistently across platforms.
This just serves as another reminder that I need to finish reading SICP. But that said, I think this brings up some very interesting points. The example provided of DRY is focused on what is happening on a human/company level, while the abstraction barriers provided focus heavily on what is happening on a software level. This is a differentiation that I feel like is extremely important when programming robust, maintainable software. You cannot let non-software related terminology seep into what is fundamentally, well, software.
When you let non-software terminology work its way into software, the software has to start making assumptions. What is a C level employee? What bonuses do they require? Are these things subject to change? The list goes on. But if you approach the problem with software first and foremost, it is clear that all is happening is a variable bonus is added to an employees compensation. It is not this layers problem what that value is, nor is it this layers problem who is being compensated. That is all concerns for a DB layer (of some form) somewhere up the chain. All the financial layer cares about is applying the calculations.
So I don’t feel like this is really a case against DRY, as much as it’s a case against using non-software terminology and applying non-software assumptions to what is fundamentally, software. The arguments for maintaining independent layers is also important, but if you’re thinking fully in terms of software operation, I feel you can more comfortably determine when layers can be interlinked.
Not sure if you got it sorted or not, but if you were following the docker-compose method documented by the devs, there were a couple hurdles I ran into. The one that may be relevant here is that at some point their docker-compose.yml did not expose the Lemmy backend to the Internet, and so all federation was failing. That said, I checked just now and they seem to have fixed that issue upstream. So you should be able to re-pull their docker-compose.yml and it should work.
This is precisely it, and is a similar approach to the ones used by other anonymization networks as well. This allows your entry node to know your node/IP is using the network, but with a secure end-to-end tunnel, nobody along that tunnel knows the entire source -> destination path or data, so it is usually considered sufficiently anonymous and secure.