Ryick

Yes! 😁

One could even say that the pronouns “him” and “her” could indicate specific types of pointers, like int and char.

Let’s make an agreement that the English word “coffee” now means 65. The reference of any word within any language only exists because we make an agreement with ourselves or with others for what a particular set of symbols gives reference to. Without an agreement, all the symbols we use mean nothing more than an arbitrary scratch on a table.

A pointer is the word, which means nothing by itself other than a grouping of letters exist, and the reference to an address is the reference to an object, which exists independently from the object—a reference to a fictional object can exist and a real object can exist without a reference.

To be a bit more specific, a word is nothing more than a set of symbols (physical) which indicate an agreed value (abstract/reference). A pointer is the word and the agreed value is the reference of the object. The object the pointer points to is the existence of the real object (physical) and its value(s) which exists regardless of abstract references.

Pattern: physical -> reference -> physical -> value

Double pointer pattern: physical -> reference -> physical -> reference -> physical -> value

Etc…

A word’s meaning can change through time as cultures rise and fall, for the temporary purpose of encrypting conversations (e.g. the word “dog” can point to the agreed value of “fork” or “7”), or even misidentification.

That is a simple and good analogy, and, yes, perhaps better than my own.

Whether the pointed data by the pointer is valid or not is… not the point.

Nor is that the point of my analogy, but I do see how you inferred that point. Your criticism has helped me identify a flaw in how I express the analogy.

Yes and no, according to the analogy. Just as a word contains the idea of an object, but not the object itself.

I recommend Debian Linux.

https://www.debian.org/social_contract

Hmm… If only there were buttons to express explicit disagreement or agreement of the behavior of the OP, the idea expressed in the post, or both.

An interesting social media evolution path to think about, at the least.

it is one of the few things I can see people actually pointing at when saying TikTok is bad

Yes, and this article reinforces that idea, regardless of whether or not TikTok = bad is correct, which is my point.

If this were an unbiased and honest article; then it would read “Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for social clout.” The subtle message, in this article, is TikTok = bad, which is illogical because events such as this will occur regardless of platform or even lack of a platform. It will ALWAYS happen. The question is how to mitigate these events as much as possible, because it’s impossible to completely eradicate “kids doing X for social clout.” It’s a part of learning and being human.

If the imprisonment of innocent people becomes anything other than rare, or if innocent people are being exiled or killed, then that implies logical analysis is not being followed or even considered but, instead, replaced with an immature and short-sighted subjective reality, meaning all else has already failed.