csirac2

> It's not courtesy if it's non consensual, same way that wealth redistribution isn't charity

I truly don't understand what you are talking about. When I was in primary school, and perhaps in no small part due to some prosopagnosia, I was unable to determine the gender of my peers reliably. This occasionally resulted in violence as I misgendered peers.

Do you live in a part of the world where you can use whatever pronouns you want on people?

If no, what exactly are we disagreeing about?

> standing for

Can you explain what, exactly, it is that you're standing for?

> There's nothing to feel, these people are neither male or female and would indeed deserve a specific pronoun, but pragmatism would make it as logical as making all cars fit for one-armed people

That's why they generally choose one or the other? Occasionally, someone will prefer a "non-standard" pronoun but I have never faced someone that didn't accept "they" (which, by the way, was my coping strategy in my childhood - when in doubt, use "they"! This was in pre-internet era of regional Queensland, Australia, where we barely had dictionaries, let alone knew what a pronoun even was)

You've obviously put a lot of energy and thought into this issue but I'm not exactly sure what the issue /is/

Can I just say what a genuinely fascinating perspective you have there

That pronouns are somehow an exercise of power that must be submitted to, and not just a common courtesy because we're not all sensitive snowflakes

And that this is in any way remotely comparable to being tortured and killed for religious beliefs

I wonder how you feel about the nearly 1.7% of people born intersex that you meet and definitely work with, that have been newborns treated by your own GP... occupying possibly the "wrong" pronoun according to whatever this week's definition of Definitely Binary means

I'm sure people getting tortured and killed for religious beliefs will definitely relate to this discussion

If you want to bring up CS101 so badly, surely turing machines and lambda calculus would be more relevant.

The actually interesting claim is that somebody has found a practical use for Interaction Combinators as a computing model for putting GPUs to work.

I don't disagree that Python's place in the ecosystem ("generalist" - i.e. load-bearing distro fossilization in everything from old binary linux distros, container layers, SIEM/SOAR products, serverless runtimes...) leads to much packaging complexity that R just doesn't have

However, Python (1991) is only 2 yrs older than R (1993)

Technologists certainly tend to seek solutions, and find blame in technology or the application of it. Getting technology right is necessary, but not sufficient.

In the end, the world is much bigger than the tech we build & consume.

... Does this statement come from having actually used things like Hadoop on Sun Grid Engine or any of Sun's other products? Or... what? What knowledge are you drawing on?

Edit: I mean, this is the company that gave us the 8 Fallacies of distributed computing, as they were 20yrs ago

I wish folks would use the taint mode they might already have. At some point taint checking bugs stopped being release blockers in core ruby & perl, but having worked through moving a couple of large codebases to surviving strict taint checking in prod, it's one of the most memorable systematic things we have to avoid (I think most?) of the bugs in the class that this is trying to solve.

Obviously, we want solutions that will remediate existing code unmodified, and I guess enabling taint mode isn't in that category.

I wonder what bugs taint checking wouldn't catch, that this would.

Worryingly, the 2015 paper didn't seem to have anything about measuring the mass of the device before and after the experiment.

An old radar technician asked me to take a look... apparently "boiling" waveguides are a thing when it comes to high-power RF.

I think we "outsider" engineers forget (or miss the point on) why amateur radio enjoys the spectrum privileges it does: education, technical investigations, research... things that further the art and community. There's a large contingent of hams just listening.

Encrypted meaningless noise on the air would be a "selfish" waste of spectrum incompatible with the neighbourly spirit espoused by most amateur radio organizations and hams themselves, not to mention damaging to the self-policing they're supposed to do.

I alsl expect it wouldn't be "allowed" to persist as a hobby in its current form in many parts of the world if you added the threat of casual encrypted communications, beyond the reach of CALEA-type intercept capabilities into the mix.

For me, I find it interesting to see which site sells my email address to unrelated marketers/spammers.

Agreed; also in .au, the last time I presented a cheque (in 2011) the poor newbie teenage bank teller strained to recall his training. He processed it ok, but panicked so badly he accidentally handed it back. The branch manager drove out to my workplace to retrieve it from me in person...

The conservancy's current level of input to the debate is appropriate. They're clearly not expending resources they don't have for this discussion. Also, they spent years with VMWare before it finally began legal action. What we have now is a discussion.

It sounds as if you don't think there should be discussion at all. "These licenses are incompatible but screw it, ship it anyway" is shitty behavior we expect from noname WiFi router OEMs.

> Apart from idealistic purity, what has that effort actually done? Has it given us access to source code we don't already have?

If we wanted a Linux that could be used like this, it'd be LGPL. That is exactly what the LGPL is for. Really. It's that simple.

I absolutely think people should think twice before blindly depending on or mashing up GPL software - at the moment they don't, and that's how we get these messes.

It's an important landmark in the history of the GPL and I find it completely weird that anyone would expect the conservancy to remain silent on it. In terms of their long-time resourcing problem, that's got nothing to do with this case and everything to do with VMWare pulling out all the stops to get their existing support pulled.

I rather suspect if the conservancy cared about their long-term survival and keeping everybody happy that much they simply wouldn't have pursued the VMWare case.

I see your point more clearly now, I guess we still differ on priorities. Having such a key player within the open source community normalize GPL violation seems somewhat urgent to me - if the current level of interest from the conservancy is overkill, what level of engagement would you consider appropriate?