Hi RMS,

Firstly I am fan of what you've done and what you have given the world. I also asked you a weakly related quesion about two decades ago when I was a teenager and didn't realise one shouldn't just email random well known people on the internet. You were kind enough to take the time to write a thoughtful reply.

The question is about subversion of Free software via a stable API. If a stable API exists in some popular library/piece of software, it is possible to write a shim layer, where the GPL shim serialises the interaction then sends that to a non-free component[*]. The non-free component of course has the interesting and useful logic. Since it's not linking to the Free part, then it's not covered by the GPL.

Via such a mechanism, one could use a significant GPL component in a non-free program. Naturally this is very much at odds with the spirit of the GPL, but not the letter. From what I recall, you explicitly warned about this sort of thing when GCC were creating an API for interacting with external tools. GCC being arguably the leading compiler in the world[1], would be prone to such subversion.

I believe your suggestion at the time was to essentially neuter the plugin API so that there was nothing left to subvert. Naturally though that comes with downsides is that it also makes it harder for the Free software community to work with GCC. GCC did eventually decide to go with the plugin API.

Do you still think that not having an API would have been the right choice? If so, what to you think the relative tradeoff is between making Free software better and as a side effect making it easier for non-free software development? If not, what made you change your mind? Either way, where do you draw the line---gcc always could be used to compile non-free software and of course making GCC better makes such things easier.

It also seems that GCC went with the plugin interface because they believed that the improvement to the usability of GCC was worth it relative to the risks. Do you think it's possible in theory to have flexible plugin interfaces without openning the door to non-free software, such as some hypothetical license change?

Thankyou for your time :)

[*] related: if one has two libraries offering identical APIs such as the various libcs, then it's hard to argue that something using libc is a derived work of a particular implementation. Especially if it's dynamically linked it could easily pick up any number of several different compatible ones. The concept of derived work is what gives the GPL and indeed all of copyright its teeth.

[1] To anyone who wants to argue that LLVM or Intel CC or etc is better please don't. GCC is arguable the best in that I and others could make reasonable arguments for that case. It's not provably the best.

I never understood the hate for the Windows key. Well, sure as a youthful Linux user I was snobbish when it was introduced, but after mapping it to something useful I started disliking keyboards without it.

What I'd really like is some simple and commonly available system that lets you re-map or disable any key on the keyboard at will.

xmodmap works well for basic key remapping. If you want to do funky stuff like make it per-keyboard instead of global (useful for UK/US keyboard differences for example) then setxkbmap is really handy.

You can pseudo-disable a key by mapping it to None. It has minor effects, like triggering a key event but it will never do anything.

Of course that only works on X based systems, but it's really handy.

Interesting take-home from the benchmark: the AMD desktop processors did prtty respectably well compared to the i7s. Ususally a bit slower, sometimes actually faster and we know an AMD setup is certainly cheaper.

Interesting that in the open source, repeatable, examinable benchmarks the difference between Itel and AMD is a lot less pronounced.

I've never actually worked with Lattice, so they might be the rare exception. But yeah most hardware companies seem to be crazy.

Because I search sites that aren't blatantly biased pro-radical-feminist garbage?

I noticed you dismissed the site as "garbage" without actually addressing my point. Do youbelieve those IRC logs are a fabrication? If so, say so. If not, then being pro gamergate means you are pro that stuff.

I have a feeling that no evidence for my side of the argument is ever going to be good enough for you,

Touche. I like how you dismiss my evidence while claiming I *will* dismiss yours and then passing the buck on addressing it. Your sophistry has been noted.

Anyway, most (all?) of the evidence I've seen has been to show that some anti-gaters have done some shitty things. You know what? That doesn't make me pro gamergate because two wrongs don't make a right.

MRAs =/= MGTOW =/= Return of Kings.

Well, last time I addressed that point, you ignored my reply. I'll do it again because what the hell why not. No they're not all strictly identical, and sure they will all trade insults for not doing it "properly". From the point of view of someone at a distance, they all peddle the same brand of regressive drivel of which an amazingly large amount seems to be spent grousing about women. The fact that they've given themselves different names and have one or two points that differ by epsilon isn't a good reason not to put them under the same broad banner of "manosphere".

They are separate paradigms.

Barely. I've gone to the original sources, you know, the websites or subreddits where they're based and no, they're barely any different at all. Saying they're different reminds me of this:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips

From the point of view of someone not in the manosphere, the difference between MGTOW and Red Pillers and ROTK etc is the difference between the reformed baptist church of god reformed 1879 and 1915. So sure they're technically different but not in any meaningful way no matter how much fuss they make about it.

In fact, RoK detests MRAs, but, if you'd even bothered to look past pro-feminist literature on the matter, you might know that.

You are under the impression I didn't know that. I do know that but I just don't care. Infact it's th opposite. The closer some split is to being the same I think the more likely they are to revile each other. The reformers of 1879 detest the reformers of 1915 but to everyone else they look more or less identical.

And to anyone not deeply embedded in the manosphere, they all share mostly the same regressive, blinkered views and no one except for them cares about the tiny, minor but very heartfelt differences.

Why aren't there more women in construction?

Curious thing. It's my personal observation, but I've seen a lot more women in hi viz round London recently. Other funny thing is they behave much like the guys and wolf whistle. I suppose it's something to do with large scale construction not relying on physical strength nearly as much as the smaller scale things.

Touche my man, touche. Like so many of the most insightful posts it's hard to choose between funny and insightful.

As someone who ends up on the side of the pro-GG side of the argument more often than not,

Out of interest, why are you pro these people:
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/...

Or perhaps you'd like to wile away a few minutes watching "the sarkeesian" effect. I do notice that the gaters on Slashdot banging on about fraud have finally given up 12 months after literally no one asked for their money back from Sarkeesian.

much the same way that "MRA" is used and misused

I think you're confusing the men's movement with the men's rights movement. The latter is the one with return of kings, mgtow and so on and who's adherents are known as men's rights activists.

I guess the expected tsunami of techies eager for SJW articles never arrived

And yet here you are bringing it up. Funny how the people whining loudest about "SJW" and whatnot are tautologically the ones who make the biggest fuss about it.

How about you stick to the topic of the optimizer bug in .NET and not drag your hatred of bogeymen into it?

With my limited understanding of what this is, I am kind of surprised that they are not actively helping the project.

Basically, hardware companies are, on the whole totally mental. For some reason, they have all their expertise in hardware and produce hardware for a living and then throw a total shitfit over the software and believe that their super special awful crashy piece of shit software is really the important thing and wrap it up in all sorts of proprietary licensing "solutions" designed to make life as hard for the paying customer as possible, when what the customer really wants to do is make some cool shit with the hardware, and maybe sell a bunch of stuff based on it.

If you're thinking in terms of niches and markets and profit margins, you're thinking about it wrong because you're implicitly assuming that they're not off the wall mad.

People still use eBay?

Yes. As opposed to what?

I, for example, regularly buy cheap Chinese imported solder paste off eBay. It's about an order of magnitude cheaper than the "proper" stuff from Farnell/RS/etc and seems to work just fine. I think there's one or two amazon vendors selling it for a vastly inflated price, too.

And etc.

Ebay seems to be a great source of random bits and bobs, e.g. m3 studding cut to length with accompanying butterfly nuts, or a small hot air rework station. ebay seems to be by far the best source for such things.

Some of the companies selling through ebay are getting quite sizable. Many of them are Chinese, selling stuff made probably in Shenzen to the wider world. There's a few which have got big enough to stock warehouses in the UK to reduce delivery times and shipping costs.

eBay is like paradise for someone who likes making stuff.

We are way beyond extraordinary claims. Closer to batshit insane claims.

well... basically yes.

Right up there with about 80% of all perpetual motion machines.

Only 80%? Breaking the conservation of momentum and breaking the conservation of energy are about the same on the level of nuttiness.

To me, it's amazing that anyone here is giving this any credibility at all, I suspect a perpetual motion machine would get less credulity, though I suspect sadly not zero. I think it's a mix of hopeless optimizm in that wanting it to work (I want it to work too, but it doesn't) enough will somehow make it work and mindless contraryism in that going with the batshit insanity rather than the very well known and understood physics is somehow "sticking it to the man" or proving what a free-thinker one is.

Between all of the pointless social narcissism platforms and SJW Bs this is enlightening news. I am excited to see what discoveries will be made.

From my observation of the various participantsm, there's a distresingly large correlation between people who love the term "SJW" (who I've noted from, er, say, other threads) and people who seem to lack skepticism over this piece of obvious total bunk.

Seriously, this "engine" is either one of the greatest discoveries of modern physics (see the discussions around symmetry of laws and Noether's theorem), or it's bull. Given it was mathematically "proven" to work by the laws that have conservation of momentum baked in at a fundemental level, I'm inclined to say it's not right. When that maths was further shown to be wrong the exact same drive was "proven" to work not by magic (incorrect) relativity woo, but by magic (and I'm sure incorrect) virtual particle woo.

The maths is more complicated, and that will in time be demonstrated incorrect, if anyone bothers. In the mean time, it will continue to produce experimental results well under the noise floor.

Incidentily, that's exactly how the people above love to argue. Hammer loudly on a point until it's disproven, then at that stage, move on to the next, harder to disprove one, and keep hammering on that. So, it's not surprising that this argument appeals to those folks.

However, in physics, you can always set up the experiment again from scratch, so no matter how many dubious "proofs" are done, the experiemnts will never show this works.

Honest is a good start, but it isn't enough. The history of science is littered with honest mistakes. We are well into the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" territory.

How are we to know which of our theories are accurate?

You should read "the relativity of wrong". It explains this stuff well.

Newton's law is never going to be disproved, ever. It's been extended with relativity and will probably be extended again. It is never going to be proven wrong because it produces exceptionally accurate predictions is everything you personally can see (pretty much provided you're not a physicist or astronomer).

In order to be disproven, it will have to stop making accurate predictions.