Haha, makes me feel sorry for people who drink alcohol. It's basically the same as smoking - "how many cigarettes a day keeps me away from lung cancer?". Instead of asking that question, why not just stop?
The fact that alcohol is such a norm is something I don't get. Let's not even mention its other helpful side-effects.
Interestingly the same can be said for aerobic exercise. 30 minutes of aerobic exercise four times per week has positive health effects. Running 100 miles per week (the training schedule of a serious marathon runner) is bad in the long run (pardon the pun).
Of course, all this is for an average person. If you have a family history of liver cancer or alcoholism, it's probably a good idea to be a teetotaler. If you have bad joints, certain heart conditions or are too heavy it's possible that running is a net negative for you.
There is also evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol has health detriments. And of course, there's evidence that the benefits outweigh the detriments, and also evidence that the detriments outweigh the benefits. I haven't seen anyone do a good job of putting these together (in e.g. a funnel plot), but as far as I can tell the only justifiable conclusion at this stage is that we really don't know.
At some point you have to weigh risks and benefits for yourself personally. Sometimes this is due to incomplete information or because it is a grey area issue. You may want to use all cause mortality which says under a drink a day is optimum versus none or more. Or if you are male, you may want higher alcohol consumption due to the heart benefits, where you are of higher risk of a disease that tends to kill earlier than cancer. It is grey area depending on the individual, their genetics, and their wishes, IMO.
Drinking 3 drinks a day, the amount necessary to have an effect on liver cancer according to the study, makes you pretty much an alcoholic, not just part of the vast number of people "who drink alcohol".
It's about developing an addiction. And addiction is a function of regularity, for alcohol. Day-to-day impact is not necessarily a good measure because it can have no negative impact at all as long as you have access to the product. A well-behaved addiction under normal circumstances is an addiction nonetheless.
I think the downvotes are due to the sarcastic tone of your comment, but none the less you do raise an interesting point. 70 years ago people probably felt that there was nothing wrong with smoking, I wonder if drinking alcohol will end up in the same boat.
If we're talking about the modern purpose of a "Hello, world!" program, then I agree. However, at the time the idea was originated, and I'm sure for a good time afterwards, build processes and frameworks weren't as mainstream as they are today. Therefore the function of a "Hello, world!" program was simply to test out the basic features of the language. That's the way I see it.
The idea of the “hello world” program was promulgated by Kernighan and Ritchie in “The C Programming Language”, and they saw it the way kylec does. Quoting “The C Programming Language, Second Edition”:
“This is the big hurdle; to leap over it you have to be able to create the program text somewhere, compile it successfully, load it, run it, and find out where your output went. With these mechanical details mastered, everything else is comparatively easy.”
(I got rid of my first edition years ago but as I recall it described the purpose of the program pretty much the same way.)
It doesn't take modern build processes and frameworks to need to know that you've crafted the bare essentials for a running problem, and the multi-stage compilations and linking process has performed as expected. Or that your cross-compile is working. Building software has been complex enough to warrant this for many decades.