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.

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.

As someone who went from FOSS -> Apple -> FOSS, I fully understand the love people have for the Apple ecosystem. In terms of proprietary hardware and software, they have a sheen and an inter-operation between their products that is genuinely unmatched.

That said, what ultimately pushed me out and back to Good Ole FOSS™ was the lack of any control, and the lack of any transparency. The idea of trusting a for-profit company with anything beyond my email address and sometimes phone number is just something I dislike doing. Apple’s processes are extremely opaque, and the last thing they want to give users is any control over their products, it’s an antithesis of what I desire from digital electronics.

As for if non-technical people should look into FOSS. I think FOSS can really give people a fundamental baseline of digital computing, and in the modern world such a baseline is extremely valuable. If they decide afterwards they prefer their proprietary ecosystems, Apple or otherwise, that’s their prerogative and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.