#0x0 — Public Fediverse posts

8 AI-Based Altcoins To Sell As Investors Rebalance Portfolios For 100X Potential - The cryptocurrency market is undergoing a notable shift, with AI-based altcoins becoming ... - https://coingape.com/markets/8-ai-based-altcoins-to-sell-as-investors-rebalance-portfolios-for-100x-potential/ #priceanalysis #render(rndr) #fetprice #0x0.ai. #grtusd #ocean #agix #arkm #tao

8 AI-Based Altcoins To Sell As Investors Rebalance Portfolios For 100X Potential - The cryptocurrency market is undergoing a notable shift, with AI-based altcoins becoming ... - https://coingape.com/markets/8-ai-based-altcoins-to-sell-as-investors-rebalance-portfolios-for-100x-potential/ #priceanalysis #render(rndr) #fetprice #0x0.ai. #grtusd #ocean #agix #arkm #tao

8 AI-Based Altcoins To Sell As Investors Rebalance Portfolios For 100X Potential - The cryptocurrency market is undergoing a notable shift, with AI-based altcoins becoming ... - https://coingape.com/markets/8-ai-based-altcoins-to-sell-as-investors-rebalance-portfolios-for-100x-potential/ #priceanalysis #render(rndr) #fetprice #0x0.ai. #grtusd #ocean #agix #arkm #tao

8 AI-Based Altcoins To Sell As Investors Rebalance Portfolios For 100X Potential - The cryptocurrency market is undergoing a notable shift, with AI-based altcoins becoming ... - https://coingape.com/markets/8-ai-based-altcoins-to-sell-as-investors-rebalance-portfolios-for-100x-potential/ #priceanalysis #render(rndr) #fetprice #0x0.ai. #grtusd #ocean #agix #arkm #tao

@helge For reference, in case it can help anyone else, putting a breakpoint in `init(0` and looking at the closest couple of stack frames, you'll see an entry like this:

#2 0x000000010063df94 in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ReKeyApp._store ()

or

#2 0x0000000100631cdc in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store ()

It very helpfully tells you the class (or struct) causing the instantiation.

Would be nice if #Xcode actually selected the line in the source instead of a line in a block of assembly, but the comments in that are helpful too:

ReKey`implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store:
0x100631cc0 <+0>: stp x20, x19, [sp, #-0x20]!
0x100631cc4 <+4>: stp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631cc8 <+8>: add x29, sp, #0x10
0x100631ccc <+12>: mov x0, #0x0
0x100631cd0 <+16>: bl 0x10062d700 ; type metadata accessor for ReKey.Store at <compiler-generated>
0x100631cd4 <+20>: mov x20, x0
0x100631cd8 <+24>: bl 0x100623770 ; ReKey.Store.__allocating_init() -> ReKey.Store at Store.swift:43
-> 0x100631cdc <+28>: ldp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631ce0 <+32>: ldp x20, x19, [sp], #0x20
0x100631ce4 <+36>: ret

@helge For reference, in case it can help anyone else, putting a breakpoint in `init(0` and looking at the closest couple of stack frames, you'll see an entry like this:

#2 0x000000010063df94 in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ReKeyApp._store ()

or

#2 0x0000000100631cdc in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store ()

It very helpfully tells you the class (or struct) causing the instantiation.

Would be nice if #Xcode actually selected the line in the source instead of a line in a block of assembly, but the comments in that are helpful too:

ReKey`implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store:
0x100631cc0 <+0>: stp x20, x19, [sp, #-0x20]!
0x100631cc4 <+4>: stp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631cc8 <+8>: add x29, sp, #0x10
0x100631ccc <+12>: mov x0, #0x0
0x100631cd0 <+16>: bl 0x10062d700 ; type metadata accessor for ReKey.Store at <compiler-generated>
0x100631cd4 <+20>: mov x20, x0
0x100631cd8 <+24>: bl 0x100623770 ; ReKey.Store.__allocating_init() -> ReKey.Store at Store.swift:43
-> 0x100631cdc <+28>: ldp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631ce0 <+32>: ldp x20, x19, [sp], #0x20
0x100631ce4 <+36>: ret

@helge For reference, in case it can help anyone else, putting a breakpoint in `init(0` and looking at the closest couple of stack frames, you'll see an entry like this:

#2 0x000000010063df94 in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ReKeyApp._store ()

or

#2 0x0000000100631cdc in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store ()

It very helpfully tells you the class (or struct) causing the instantiation.

Would be nice if #Xcode actually selected the line in the source instead of a line in a block of assembly, but the comments in that are helpful too:

ReKey`implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store:
0x100631cc0 <+0>: stp x20, x19, [sp, #-0x20]!
0x100631cc4 <+4>: stp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631cc8 <+8>: add x29, sp, #0x10
0x100631ccc <+12>: mov x0, #0x0
0x100631cd0 <+16>: bl 0x10062d700 ; type metadata accessor for ReKey.Store at <compiler-generated>
0x100631cd4 <+20>: mov x20, x0
0x100631cd8 <+24>: bl 0x100623770 ; ReKey.Store.__allocating_init() -> ReKey.Store at Store.swift:43
-> 0x100631cdc <+28>: ldp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631ce0 <+32>: ldp x20, x19, [sp], #0x20
0x100631ce4 <+36>: ret

@helge For reference, in case it can help anyone else, putting a breakpoint in `init(0` and looking at the closest couple of stack frames, you'll see an entry like this:

#2 0x000000010063df94 in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ReKeyApp._store ()

or

#2 0x0000000100631cdc in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store ()

It very helpfully tells you the class (or struct) causing the instantiation.

Would be nice if #Xcode actually selected the line in the source instead of a line in a block of assembly, but the comments in that are helpful too:

ReKey`implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store:
0x100631cc0 <+0>: stp x20, x19, [sp, #-0x20]!
0x100631cc4 <+4>: stp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631cc8 <+8>: add x29, sp, #0x10
0x100631ccc <+12>: mov x0, #0x0
0x100631cd0 <+16>: bl 0x10062d700 ; type metadata accessor for ReKey.Store at <compiler-generated>
0x100631cd4 <+20>: mov x20, x0
0x100631cd8 <+24>: bl 0x100623770 ; ReKey.Store.__allocating_init() -> ReKey.Store at Store.swift:43
-> 0x100631cdc <+28>: ldp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631ce0 <+32>: ldp x20, x19, [sp], #0x20
0x100631ce4 <+36>: ret

@helge For reference, in case it can help anyone else, putting a breakpoint in `init(0` and looking at the closest couple of stack frames, you'll see an entry like this:

#2 0x000000010063df94 in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ReKeyApp._store ()

or

#2 0x0000000100631cdc in implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store ()

It very helpfully tells you the class (or struct) causing the instantiation.

Would be nice if #Xcode actually selected the line in the source instead of a line in a block of assembly, but the comments in that are helpful too:

ReKey`implicit closure #2 in implicit closure #1 in variable initialization expression of ContentView._store:
0x100631cc0 <+0>: stp x20, x19, [sp, #-0x20]!
0x100631cc4 <+4>: stp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631cc8 <+8>: add x29, sp, #0x10
0x100631ccc <+12>: mov x0, #0x0
0x100631cd0 <+16>: bl 0x10062d700 ; type metadata accessor for ReKey.Store at <compiler-generated>
0x100631cd4 <+20>: mov x20, x0
0x100631cd8 <+24>: bl 0x100623770 ; ReKey.Store.__allocating_init() -> ReKey.Store at Store.swift:43
-> 0x100631cdc <+28>: ldp x29, x30, [sp, #0x10]
0x100631ce0 <+32>: ldp x20, x19, [sp], #0x20
0x100631ce4 <+36>: ret

@dok You can construct executable code that starts with "MZ": Linux EFI stub uses "MZ@\xfa" (ccmp x18, #0x0, #0xd, pl, basically no-op). barebox says it's an "ARM AArch64 Linux Image", so I am wondering why it's called vmlinux?

CY_BORG !!!

My contributor copy arrived, recently. This is an aggressively stylish book, *goddamn*.

And a nightmare of a setting. The book obliges the GM for a "Miserable Headline" (major event that changes the shape of the City) every so often; but

"The 7th time a Miserable Headline is rolled, it will always be #0x0."

Ie: "Proof the world is a simulation; reset the entire campaign."

Victory against the corpo-capitalist antagonists are ultimately impossible. The nightmare is eternal

1/

CY_BORG !!!

My contributor copy arrived, recently. This is an aggressively stylish book, *goddamn*.

And a nightmare of a setting. The book obliges the GM for a "Miserable Headline" (major event that changes the shape of the City) every so often; but

"The 7th time a Miserable Headline is rolled, it will always be #0x0."

Ie: "Proof the world is a simulation; reset the entire campaign."

Victory against the corpo-capitalist antagonists are ultimately impossible. The nightmare is eternal

1/

CY_BORG !!!

My contributor copy arrived, recently. This is an aggressively stylish book, *goddamn*.

And a nightmare of a setting. The book obliges the GM for a "Miserable Headline" (major event that changes the shape of the City) every so often; but

"The 7th time a Miserable Headline is rolled, it will always be #0x0."

Ie: "Proof the world is a simulation; reset the entire campaign."

Victory against the corpo-capitalist antagonists are ultimately impossible. The nightmare is eternal

1/

CY_BORG !!!

My contributor copy arrived, recently. This is an aggressively stylish book, *goddamn*.

And a nightmare of a setting. The book obliges the GM for a "Miserable Headline" (major event that changes the shape of the City) every so often; but

"The 7th time a Miserable Headline is rolled, it will always be #0x0."

Ie: "Proof the world is a simulation; reset the entire campaign."

Victory against the corpo-capitalist antagonists are ultimately impossible. The nightmare is eternal

1/