You can already do that in standard C like this:

struct test {
        int a;
        struct {
                char b;
                float c;
        } test2;
        double d;
};

I can't think of any particular reason why you'd want an unnamed struct inside a struct, but you definitely would want to be able to have an unnamed struct inside a union. I suspect the struct-inside-struct thing can become useful in some scenarios involving unions.

It's not that convenient. I can't even think of a situation where this would be useful for structs, only unions. And in the case of unions, you usually want to keep them as small as possible (or better yet, avoid them altogether).

But besides that, C is a language that tends to prefer minimalism. Using macros, you can accomplish a similar thing already, even if it's not as nice.

Europe has backyards?

They were only in office for 4 years, and while they did a lot they couldn't do everything.

Not everything is about politics.

No, but antitrust enforcement obviously is

What kind of work do you do? Every time I read stuff like this, I find it hard to believe, but maybe the code/languages/frameworks I'm using just aren't as easy for LLMs as what other people are using. The results I've had trying to get it to write C++ have been atrocious.

I'm not against AI code assistance, and I like keeping an open mind. For the moment though, the only success I've had is with using it to explain some feature or API faster than manually looking up the documentation. But actually reading the docs, I've found, helps me remember things better.

your user folder linked to one drive (so you’ll always have a backup) is also a cash-grab

That's actually illegal bundling behavior, something they wouldn't dare do if Biden was still president and Lina Khan was still head of the FTC.

I think actually that the future of Windows won't be so dire post Trump. There's no way the pro-monopoly brain rot survives this admin, and people will soon start to realize that the billionaires, although easy targets, are just a symptom of lax regulation rather than the root cause of the enshitiffication apocalypse of the mid 2020s.

Forget the cloud. What if the ad is the operating system? Windows 12 will be using a distributed architecture, running on top of global ad networks. Every advertisement medium (TV, radio, web, video) will include an x86 interpreter that runs Windows services (ARM support will come later).

The same tracking tech used to target you with that ad will be used to log you in to your Azure Copilot 365 OneDrive account, so you can access your files and applications seamlessly without having to remember a password or pin. When your smart toilet is showing you an ad for Draft Kings to earn your flush credit, you'll be able to check your emails, connect with the fam, or ask Copilot for assistance.

I'm sitting around doing IT shit waiting things to download/backup/install/etc and have nothing better to do, so here's an AI-free explanation with code samples:

It's basically just a code style thing. Standard C allows you to declare unnamed structs/unions within other structs/unions. They must be unnamed, so it'd look like this:

struct test {
        int a;
        struct {
                char b;
                float c;
        };
        double d;
};

Which is fine, but the -fms-extensions flag enables you to do the same thing with named structs. For example:

struct test {
        int a;
        struct test2 {
                char b;
                float c;
        };
        double d;
};

without -fms-extensions, the above will compile, but won't do what you might assume. b and c will be members of struct test2, not test. So something like this won't compile:

struct test my_test;
my_test.b = 1; // error: ‘struct test’ has no member named ‘b’

But with the flag, not only does it work, it also lets you do some convenient things like this:

struct test2 {
        char b;
        float c;
};
struct test {
        int a;
        struct test2;
        double d;
};
//...
struct test my_test;
my_test.b = 1; //OK

That is, you can reuse an existing struct definition, which gives you a nice little tool to organize your code.

Source: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html

Everyone already explained why your view on this issue is misguided, so I'll just add one thing: even if these people are guilty of drug smuggling, that is not a crime that's punishable by death in the United States.

Why can't they just intercept the boats and arrest the people on board if they truly have evidence of smuggling? It's cheaper in the short term than wasting expensive missiles, and much cheaper in the long term when you factor in the reparations we're going to have to pay to the families of all the people that were murdered.

The smallest company that I’m aware of that has their own laptop design is Framework, but their laptops are also about twice as expensive as equivalent models from other brands.

Idk how big they are compared to Framework, but Starlabs makes their own laptops.

The person you responded to said that a majority preferring one option out of many was not monopolistic behaviour.

Here's that person's comment again:

I didn’t realize that people choosing 1 option out of several is what defined a monopoly. I’m pretty sure it’s when there is no other choice but to use that 1 thing.

First of all, your paraphrasing doesn't make sense because it sounds like you're saying consumers can engage in monopolistic behavior via their shopping choices. I'll assume you were just being lazy with the wording, and interpret it as you agreeing with the statement that "a monopoly is when consumers only have one choice".

I explained in my comment above that this is not true, and I even linked to a Wikipedia article written by people who know more about this than you or I. If you haven't read it, please do. It's not even that long. The sidebar has links to relevant topics that go into more detail about competition law, which I highly recommend exploring.

You're choosing to remain ignorant. I want to know, what's in it for you? What do you gain from doing this? It can't just be the dopamine from seeing number go up, because that has to get old after a while.

My motivation in threads like these is to help share the limited knowledge I have with other people, because the world works better when people know how it works. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm an antitrust nerd as it's a pretty massive issue in the industry where I work (tech), and my experience is that there are a ton of people like you two with an incorrect understanding of how the law actually works. This is counter productive to solving the antitrust issue because misinformed people end up voting for the wrong things (and/or influencing policy in other ways).