<OriansJ>also I am finding implicit defines in mes.c that are missing (like strlen) <OriansJ>that is one heck of a good question; for example do: grep -R "strlen.c" or grep -R strlen <OriansJ>So one sees mes.c uses strlen; it never includes it explicitly from lib/string/strlen.c <Hagfish>does the compiler just go searching for it? <Hagfish>so it's not just undefined behaviour? <OriansJ>I'll have to open up my copy of the C99 spec but any function name not imported should throw an exception at build time <OriansJ>aka in example.c if you put foo(4); and foo isn't defined by import or prototype an exception is thrown even by clang and gcc <OriansJ>now if it is defined by prototype and it isn't resolved it can be loaded in dynamically if the library that includes it is in the library load section of the binary <Hagfish>that's the easy thing to do, but if it's technically undefined behaviour, i wouldn't blame the compiler for going looking (and issuing a warning) <OriansJ>libc is implicit but strlen isn't part of libc last I checked <Hagfish>yeah, i was wondering whether libc was relevant here <OriansJ>(M2-Planet's libc is _start and nothing else) <OriansJ>and it is built into the binary at build time <OriansJ>it simply sets up the stack and calls main; then upon return it calls exit <OriansJ>so M2-Planet chokes instantly on anything not completely defined with valid code <OriansJ>strlen simply isn't defined in the #includes nor any of the files used in the build; thus boom error <Hagfish>it seems very "nothing up my sleeve", but it's weird if missing functions are working <OriansJ>well that is why I encourage scheme programmers to help make MesCC as clean as possible <OriansJ>The cleaner the code, the easier it is for people to know exactly how it works, without having to drill janneke for understanding of how <OriansJ>in comparision in stage0+mescc-tools+M2-Planet; I feel everything not clear is a serious bug that needs to be addressed completely <Hagfish>yeah, readability should be a non-functional requirement for any software, especially Free software, but in a project like this it's almost more important than the functional requirements <OriansJ>exactly, I am literally personally responsible for the future roots of trust for the entire Linux ecosystem <OriansJ>everything needs to be torn apart and inspected by people who do not trust me <OriansJ>that way there is no advantage to any attacker compromising me nor my systems <Hagfish>if we got to the point where everyone said "i can trust my computer, because i trust OriansJ", that wouldn't be progress (and might be a huge unnecessary burden on you) <OriansJ>I want my work to be publicly auditable by grade-school level children with an afternoon of introduction to programming <Hagfish>we want people to say "i can trust my computer, because its trust root has been checked by more people than any other collection of software in the world, and i thank OriansJ (and others) for that", then we're in a good position <OriansJ>and anyone who wants to should be able to audit it all in a weekend <Hagfish>it's nice when a project's incentives are structured in a way that makes people want to do the right thing <OriansJ>Hagfish: that was an intentional choice from day zero <Hagfish>without that choice, the project might not have got this far <OriansJ>for all we know it would have been a big hex0 blob for FORTH and then code so dense it wouldn't really be inspectable <Hagfish>sadly not everyone has the luxury of working on projects that don't give them major ethical difficulties <OriansJ>Hagfish: Government agencies (especially human welfare departments) are always hiring <Hagfish>right, and i guess a lot of general purpose software is sort of "dual use" <Hagfish>yeah, and i like to think that Free software is inherently democratising (even though power imbalances do make things more complicated) <OriansJ>in careful hands it can save lives and make the world a better place <Hagfish>what's that adage? "technology isn't evil or good. nor is it neutral" <OriansJ>Some technology is single purpose like a M-16 assault rifle but in the hands of a person protecting people from harm; it does more good than harm. <Hagfish>i suppose someone making M-16s needs to do that calculation, and weigh up the good and the harm <OriansJ>also one needs to understand that everyone has different value systems and belief systems <OriansJ>aka is it ok to sell M-16s to police or to the general public? <Hagfish>but people in different countries will likely take different views about which governments can be trusted with certain weapons <Hagfish>the good and bad thing about ethical decisions is that they decentralised, in the sense that everyone has to make their own <OriansJ>for example, is it ok to sell Free Software to ICE <Hagfish>yeah, we shouldn't be surprised when people do, and we should have the mental tools for dealing with that disagreement <OriansJ>because it will provide funding for continued public development of Free Software <OriansJ>Red Hat made most of their money from Military contracts <Hagfish>it can be difficult to measure the effect of deterrence <Hagfish>does having a strong military (or strong borders) make a country safer? <OriansJ>is it ok that the Linux kernel gets patches from Microsoft? <Hagfish>disbanding the military for a few years, to carry out a scientific experiment, doesn't seem like the best way to answer that, but we can look at other countries' policies <OriansJ>or that hardware manufactors put binary blobs in the Linux kernel? <Hagfish>binary blobs are difficult to reason about, if the alternative is that they are put into ROMs <OriansJ>or should congress listen to their own Military specialists and reduce spending on pointless things like tanks <Hagfish>(i mean the ethics of allowing binary blobs_ <OriansJ>In the end, the world is a complicated place <Hagfish>the ethical concerns of spending money on military hardware that isn't used should be less than the concerns around hardware that is used <OriansJ>where I can only see a fraction of the details required <OriansJ>in the end, we all end up having to trust others to do the right thing <Hagfish>society has only become more complex, but i feel like adding more information (or getting an AI to calculate all these hypotheticals for us) doesn't address the underlying psychological biases we use to make our decisions <OriansJ>we just need to be comfortable with limiting our decisions to ones where the cost of failure is in the scope of what we are willing to accept will fail. <Hagfish>yeah, it comes down to risk and trust, very human emotions <OriansJ>and very easily to do from logical assumptions <Hagfish>i recent example is people saying that they wouldn't trust a self-driving car, even if the data showed they were safer (especially if they had a bad personal experience with one) <Hagfish>it can be very unsettling to people when their heart and their head say different things, and i'm sympathetic towards that <OriansJ>Hagfish: as a person who lost a loved one in a car crash to a drunk driver's inability to not go 100+ MPH through a red light. <OriansJ>Self-driving cars can have an optional disable <Hagfish>are car companies going to be liable for software mistakes? <OriansJ>but I want those machines to signal to all other cars that they are in bad driving mode and to give them plenty of space <Hagfish>are individual developers going to go to court for lines of code they were told to write? <Hagfish>heh, yeah, there should be a light on the top or something <OriansJ>Short version; laws will be passed and standards created <OriansJ>with early intercept path info shown to all manual drivers <Hagfish>long version: insurance companies will charge higher premiums for cars which are less safe (and will lobby governments to make their businesses more profitable) <OriansJ>Hagfish: human driven will be less safe <OriansJ>Those with money can choose self-drive as a premium option <Hagfish>there'll be some cross over point where self-driving cars are more expensive to buy, but cheaper to insure <OriansJ>give it 5-10 years before it ends up being cheaper <Hagfish>like solar panels (plus batteries) being expensive up front costs but saving money over the life time of the system (in some locations) <OriansJ>Hagfish: just having batteries to reduce peak power usage saves money everywhere there are peak power charges <OriansJ>Some places, these systems pay for themselves in 3months <Hagfish>yeah, i'm slightly annoyed that it's not more common for people to be paid to give energy back to the grid <Hagfish>the technology for doing this has been around for decades, right? <OriansJ>correct but society and technology move at different paces <Hagfish>you wouldn't even need solar panels, just have a million people each buying a battery <Hagfish>consumers follow economic incentives, and a government could incentivise buying batteries to smooth the grid <OriansJ>Most people don't know that it can save them a boatload of money <OriansJ>kinda like how most people don't understand MIMO financial analysis <Hagfish>a lot depends on regional factors, and long term issues like rising fuel prices (and taxes), and lowering battery life <OriansJ>(if Money In > Money Out you end up with more and more money) <Hagfish>right, that's what i guessed you meant <Hagfish>yeah, people tend to think in terms of single values, not first (and definitely not second) derivatives <OriansJ>self-reflection and basic analysis is routinely missed because people are stressed and buried with propaganda saying buy more <Hagfish>money stresses are self-reinforcing, and there are all sorts of traps that keep poorer people poor <OriansJ>it is the psychological drivers that need correction <Hagfish>poverty isn't a mental illness, it's a lack of money <OriansJ>I've had conversations with people making $200+K/year who are deeply in debt <Hagfish>(i know i'm not correctly representing what you're saying, but i hope you'll excuse my extreme framing) <OriansJ>and conversations with people making $17K/year who are well on their way to retiring <Hagfish>it's like that expression about bankruptcy "little by little at first, and then all at once" <OriansJ>granted there are cases of structural poverty in some places around the world but they need external help <OriansJ>but there are organizations that issue micro-loans to those parts at 0% interest and allow those communities to fix themselves <Hagfish>and 0% can be hundreds of percent lower than the rates other lenders are offering <OriansJ>well by designed to reduce the total invested money to zero (when people default or simply steal the money) <OriansJ>but that why it is considered "effective charity" <Hagfish>presumably, the amount the organisations lose from these unprofitable loans is more than made up for by the benefits to having a community out of poverty (less crime, better grades, etc.) <OriansJ>give people a way to escape poverty without dicating how to do that <Hagfish>the loan market can stay irrational longer than an organisation can necessarily stay solvent <OriansJ>and if only 50M people put in $50/Month; world poverty could be ended in 20 years <Hagfish>world poverty has been decreasing for decades (despite growing global population) <OriansJ>people in poverty will do anything including sweatshop labor to get a better life for themselves and their children <Hagfish>which makes them easy targets, and means they end up paying more than their fair share <OriansJ>well yes; that is the incentive structure of the entire system. Abuse people's weaknesses for personal financial gain <Hagfish>it does seem intuitive to me that giving people money to spend how they want is the most effective way to deal with their needs, since freedom is a sort of force multiplier <OriansJ>it falls apart when a group of people understand their actions and plan for the long term. <Hagfish>but perhaps i am projecting my own sense of (relative) financial freedom onto people in different circumstances <OriansJ>Hagfish: well let me use an example: GM factory workers <OriansJ>If they simply spent 1% of their income buying GM stock; then right now they would own 82% of all GM shares <Hagfish>that definitely seems like a coordination problem (the fact that they haven't done that) <OriansJ>now what would the benefits negotiation look like then? <OriansJ>And they have a union that could buy shares for them too <Hagfish>(presumably there would be problems with this simplistic analysis, such as the price rising, and voting for a board that are competent and share the interests of the new shareholders) <Hagfish>actually yeah, shouldn't the union be doing this? <Hagfish>i might have heard of that, when the company is about to go bust or something <OriansJ>hundreds of companies flipped into being worker owned and controlled <OriansJ>or when the workers collectively decide they are tired of the owner's shit <OriansJ>aka all resturant employees hate the owner, pool together their money and simply setup shop across the street <Hagfish>yeah, that's a nice option when there isn't much capital needed to recreate the business <Hagfish>if the assets are mostly the employees <OriansJ>or if the employees convience the "equipment dept" to sell the equipment to them cheap <OriansJ>There have been cases of entire buildings sold for $1 <Hagfish>hmm, i feel like there are some clever tricks possible <OriansJ>"it was out for bid and they were the highest bidder" <Hagfish>if you knew that GM was going to fail, you could short the stock, so the union could make a profit (if that isn't insider trading) <OriansJ>again, a large group of motivated people can change the world <Hagfish>"don't think that a small group of motivated people can't change the world. indeed, it's the only thing that ever has" <OriansJ>bootstrappable certainly is and will continue to change the world forever <Hagfish>if your strike could cause GM to collapse, and sell you its assets to the new company (run by the strikers), then the union might only need a loan of, say, 10% of GM's market cap <OriansJ>Hagfish: again there are many many games a large angry group could do <Hagfish>yeah, i'm surprised i haven't seen more such success stories <OriansJ>in the old days: entire building would empty out or burn to the ground <OriansJ>and the day they are solved; look out <Hagfish>yeah, the internet should be one of the last big ingredients needed <OriansJ>Hagfish: have you seen Google's Selfish ledger video yet? <OriansJ>In a distributed fashion, it would enable an instant solution to the coordination problem <OriansJ>a simulated version of you, could communicate with all other simulated versions of everyone else and coordinate to solve your collective most important problems in an efficient manner <Hagfish>hmm, yeah, that's a nicer way of putting it <Hagfish>isn't there a TED Talk that talks about this? <OriansJ>it however if controlled by a single party would enable perfect social control forever <Hagfish>AI versions of ourselves, which copy our preferences, and interact with each other online <OriansJ>but if a distributed version is made first, it would radically reshape politics forever <OriansJ>Hagfish: if everyone had their own and controlled their own locally <OriansJ>It is in the class of work, I have selected to never do because I understand the full implications. <OriansJ>On one hand all of the world's problems would be solved quickly <OriansJ>on the other hand, a psychological monoculture will form <Hagfish>hmm, that's a hard to predict outcome <OriansJ>those who are cognatively normative will have a happier, healthier lives <OriansJ>those who are cognatively divergent will be supressed/removed <Hagfish>why more so than in the current political system? <OriansJ>right now, it is hard to know if someone is cognatively divergent when you meet them or hire them <Hagfish>i don't think we should avoid technology (either digital, or political) just because it is effective <OriansJ>Hagfish: You are free to feel that way <OriansJ>self-targeting drones are extremely effective but that too I refuse to work on <Hagfish>yes, obviously data protection would have to be built into this, but if the system is decentralised (and anonymised) it shouldn't necessarily cause big societal problems <Hagfish>well, the intended goal of self-targeting drones is one that is inherently troubling <Hagfish>i guess that weapons and HFT are technologies that we've already seen the negative effects of <OriansJ>nothing effective fails to change society in a foundational way <OriansJ>Effective anti-biotics had huge social impacts <OriansJ>ranging from the free love movement to the massive spread of AIDs <Hagfish>not every aspect of society is foundational though <OriansJ>But there are few major effiencies left that are not foundational <Hagfish>i think that the qualifier "major" probably automatically means "foundational" <Hagfish>that's the TED Talk i was thinking of <OriansJ>Hagfish: I disagree but that wouldn't further the conversation <Hagfish>it's "provocative", as the description says, but it explores the idea a bit, and got me thinking at least <OriansJ>"None of us are as cruel as all of us are." <OriansJ>no one gives a damn that every year 20M people die of preventable causes under the current system <Hagfish>the problem is, the supporters of the current system can always say "but it would be 21M if we changed things" ***Server sets mode: +cnt
***Server sets mode: +cnt
***Server sets mode: +cnt
***Server sets mode: +cnt