Mhm, sure… The build stage shouldn’t get past line one. Tons of broken preprocessor directives with no clear purpose, no main function, lots of random parentheses?!

Wait, the compiler is suspiciously happy about this:

And it runs!

More information in the c-macro folder in my GitLab repository.

Source

GPS: “Make a U-turn when possible.” (Source)

Mumble, mumble, international law, mumble, mumble.

Ilan Sadé, partiledare för Medborgerlig Samling (MED) tweetade förra veckan ut en länk med följande kommentar:

Denna essä är ytterst läsvärd. https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-moment-part-one

@sadeilan 2021-12-22

Jag håller med om att texten är läsvärd i flera delar. Andra delar utgör dock ett minfält av högst tvivelaktiga argument, och hela alltet får som jag ser det tumme upp av Ilan nu. Nedan redogör jag för (nästan) ett halvt dussin av de mer uppenbara problemen jag hittade.

Av praktiska skäl har jag endast krafsat lite på ytan, och jag är även lockad att argumentera emot mig själv i några delar, men jag måste dra en gräns någonstans. I annat fall kan jag säkert sitta och skriva på detta i flera veckor – det är mycket material som hänvisas till.

Påstående ett: vaccinstudier är inte färdiga

Here we have a novel technology, never before used at scale or for this purpose, used to create a series of vaccines which have been rolled out to millions before their clinical trials are even complete.

Här tänker jag bara hänvisa rakt av till Emanuel Karlsten, då han har berört dessa punkter vid flera tillfällen. För svensk kontext, se t.ex. jämförelsen han gör med vaccin för svininfluensan, samt vad han skriver om godkännande av covid-19-vaccinerna.

Påstående två: vaccin förvärrar situationen

This is an unprecendented [sic] situation – as is vaccination for a respiratory virus in the middle of a pandemic, which some people with serious expertise warn may worsen the sitution [sic] rather than end it.

Personen med “serious expertise” är den belgiske veterinären Geert Vanden Bossche. Snopes har skrivit om honom, och även om den artikeln i sig har flera brister (kaninhålet bara fortsätter!) länkas till ett dokument där följande går att läsa:

From all of the above, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how the consequences of the extensive and erroneous human intervention in this pandemic are not going to wipe out large parts of our human population. One could only think of very few other strategies to achieve the same level of efficiency in turning a relatively harmless virus into a bioweapon of mass destruction.

I det här fallet känns det alltså rätt tveksamt att lyfta fram personen som ett bevis på att hans argument har tyngd.

Påstående tre: läkemedelsbolagen döljer sanningen

The companies manufacturing these things are making equally unprecedented hourly profits, and their long histories of dishonesty and cover-ups, plus the fact that they are legally immune from any liability for problems arising from these vaccines, makes it impossible to take seriously their assurances of safety.

Hur juridiskt ansvar och / eller immunitet hanteras varierar från land till land. I USA finns det t.ex. en speciell fond för vaccinrelaterade skador, vilket beskrivs bl.a. på följande vis:

The VICP was established after lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates. The Program began accepting petitions (also called claims) in 1988.

What are VICP’s objectives?

– ensure an adequate supply of vaccines;
– stabilize vaccine costs; and
– establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.

Det är i övrigt ett ofantligt batteri av punkter som tas upp i det som länkas till, så det kräver lite ansträngning att sortera ut specifikt vad för “dishonesty and cover-ups” som åsyftas. Det finns åtminstone ett exempel som framkom i november i år i samband med Ventavias hantering av en Pfizer-studie, men det tas inte upp i texten, och man ska vara försiktig med att dra för stora växlar på det.

Ett av de mest framträdande argumenten gäller rapportering till VAERS (USA-databas för misstänkta biverkningar från vaccin), så jag nöjer mig med detta just nu. Den rapport som nämns där innehåller följande:

Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.

Det framgår inte hur den här siffran är uträknad. Dessutom är det här en rapport som gäller mer än tio år gammalt data. Att hänvisa till den idag är direkt vilseledande.

Påstående fyra: medicinska behandlingar motarbetas aktivt

And when we witness an active state/media campaign against early treatment of a disease […]

(Resten av citatet fortsätter efter nästa rubrik.)

Av texten kan man tro att det är något som är satt i system för flera olika typer av medicinska behandlingar. Artikeln som länkas till handlar dock specifikt om ivermectin, och säga vad man vill om FDA:s tonläge, de har mycket mer att säga om varför det inte är oproblematiskt att ge till människor i dagsläget.

Påstående fem: biverkningar redovisas inte

[…] against early treatment of a disease – the precise opposite of what every doctor is taught at medical school – along with a refusal to report any of the mounting evidence of short-term side-effects, it ought to be clear that something is happening which cannot be explained by the story we are being told.

Här länkas dels till personliga berättelser, och dels till en längre utläggning om bl.a. andra berättelser.

Det är naturligtvis tragiskt när en person skadas eller dör av ett vaccin. Det är även tragiskt när en person dör efter att ha blivit nedsövd för en operation. Det betyder inte att samhället ska sluta operera folk – det finns risker som måste vägas mot varandra.

Om argumentet är att vaccinet medför större risker än sjukdomen, är det en annan diskussion. Men då ska sägas att länk nummer två ovan leder till följande tankekedja i första punkten:

Well, maybe athletes have been collapsing and dying at such a rate all along, and we are only now noticing it because of heightened vigilance due to “anti-vax hysteria.” That could be. I haven’t gone into the statistics that might decide the issue – if such statistics even exist.

$ cat redef-keywords.js
if‌ = isNaN;

if‌ (NaN)
    console.log("This line will never be printed.");
$ node redef-keywords.js
This line will never be printed.
$

Edit: change from ES5+ to ES6+ for technical reasons.

j8t is a project I created which efficiently translates any generic JavaScript program (ES5+) into one which uses only 10 unique characters. Why 10 and not 8 or 6, like other projects? Simply put, it’s about following the rules to the letter.

It is based on the idea that individual characters can be formed by abusing various features in the language. For instance:

> +[]
0
> +!![]
1
> (+{}+[])[+[]]
'N'

(Obviously!)

I am taking this way too seriously when I say that similar projects I know of are all cutting one or more corners. As far as I know, 10 characters is the minimum if you want to do it “properly”. So I set out to do that. In the process, I also made various optimizations that makes it possible to convert large programs, and do so efficiently, or indeed convert j8t itself. I’m not aware of any other project that can do the same.

So, what is this good for?

Short answer: nothing! If you’re still reading at this point, you should have known that.

Long answer: it’s a bizarre form of entertainment, and at the same time it is possible to learn a lot when pushing things to the limit.

I don’t know how this document will be enforced of course. That is precisely the problem. Some leeway is understandable. This is just absurd. It is not just vague, but opens up more avenues for abuse than if there was no document at all.

It is relevant context that this document – except for some cosmetic changes relating to where reports should be made – is based word for word on the contributor covenant, a document written by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who as you can see on that page is a self-proclaimed “Social Justice Warrior”. This screams of a political power grab.

Let’s go through the Linux version:

In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone,

Stop, stop, stop. This sounds innocent enough at first, but who defines harassment? The Cambridge Dictionary includes the following definition: (emphasis added)

behaviour that annoys or upsets someone

If a maintainer says: “we appreciate your considerable investment in this code, but we are sad to say we will not include it because of X, Y and Z”, would it perhaps be considered annoying by the person receiving that feedback to see all their sweat and tears go to waste? If this aspect of the code of conduct is ridiculous enough to never be enforced, why is it included in the first place?

So: we’re not even a full sentence in, and we can already interpret the document as follows:

As a Linux kernel maintainer, you pledge to never reject anyone’s code, if you suspect it might annoy them.

It gets worse.

The sentence continues:

regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

I thought the word everyone was pretty precise and inclusive. What is this doing here besides making an ideological statement?

Next come some “recommendations” of how to behave:

Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include:

* Using welcoming and inclusive language

Let me guess – prefixing a mail to a group of people with “guys” is not “inclusive”? Basically: type like a bureaucrat, or we’ll come after you for not being inclusive. But if you do type like a bureaucrat, we’ll come after you for not being welcoming!

* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences

Respect is earned.

* Gracefully accepting constructive criticism

How about just receiving constructive criticism? It may or may not be accepted.

* Focusing on what is best for the community

Who decides what is best?

* Showing empathy towards other community members

So if you have empathy but – according to someone else – don’t show it, that doesn’t count? A lot of the Linux kernel communication goes through e-mail, not exactly the best medium to show empathy. And what does that mean anyway? Do what you feel is right, but in a nicer way? Or do what you feel is wrong, just so that someone else might avoid taking offense?

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:

* The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
* Public or private harassment

Who defines what an attack is?

See comment at the top regarding harassment.

* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Who decides what is inappropriate?

Maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.

So here’s where attack and inappropriate get defined I suppose. Isn’t this what is really setting the stage here? How about if the entire code of conduct is replaced with this single sentence instead of all this mumbo-jumbo?

Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.

Never mind, here the “appropriate”, “fair” and “clarifying” part go out the window as well, as does the code of conduct itself. Now we’re talking about “other behaviors”! So now you can get into trouble based on the particular mood of a particular maintainer on a particular day.

This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.

More mumbo-jumbo. This does not put any effective limits on what “representing” means. We might as well assume that anything you do in your life could be considered “representation” if it somehow comes into contact with a Linux kernel developer.

Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at <tab@lists.linux-foundation.org>. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident.

I.e.: you can get accused by someone who wants to be anonymous, without having the chance to defend yourself against that person or persons. Otherwise the TAB would be breaching their obligation to maintain confidentiality.

Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.

Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project’s leadership.

This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html

Recap:

• What “representing” the project or community means can be defined at any time, to mean anything.
• “Inappropriate” behavior can be defined at any time, to mean anything. At a miminum, annoying someone on a single occasion qualifies.
• You can get accused anonymously, without a chance to confront that person.
• You can get banned for “inappropriate” behavior while “representing” the project or community.

Ergo:

If you, as a Linux kernel developer, anywhere in the world, at any time, in any context, whether you realize it or not, behave in some way that, directly or indirectly, results, at any time in the future, in some anonymous person, justified or not, claiming to feel at least slightly uncomfortable, be warned that you may be permanently banned from contributing to the Linux kernel.

The EU is quick to point out that this will not affect “small” companies, in practice meaning ones with fewer than 50 employees. That is hardly any comfort, and WordPress.com for instance has 779 employees at the time of writing this. Should everyone with a blog now start looking over their shoulders?

Mozilla (the folks behind Firefox) has more details on the situation before the vote, and where we are after the vote.

As for Sweden, here’s how the voting went: (Socialdemokraterna form the current government here, together with Miljöpartiet)

For:

Against:

Abstentions: none.

Appears not to have been present:

Sources:

• Press release from the European Parliament
• EU definition of company sizes
• List of Swedish MEPs
• About WordPress.com etc.
• Copy of voting list from the European Parliament: euparl-copyright-votes-sep-2018.pdf (the relevant votes are on page 38 and 39)

Less than an hour ago, I had a short email conversation with Daisuke Wakabayashi using his nytimes.com email address, in follow-up to his recent tweet about James Damore’s supposed Twitter account (see below for the details on the James Damore account itself).

When asked about how he confirmed that this is indeed James Damore’s account, Daisuke responded with saying “He told me in an email.” and “I’m not going to get into the specifics, but it’s an email address that I know to be his.”

I don’t have any other source at the moment to corroborate this. I know Newsweek has attempted to contact James Damore as well and at the time of writing this, they say “Newsweek has reached out to Damore for a comment on the account but not yet received a response”, so at the moment they are deferring to the Daisuke’s judgment.

I will leave my original content below as-is for now, as I think there are some potentially important points in there. You can judge for yourself if the account is real or not.

If it is indeed a real account, I’m at least a tiny bit disappointed at the specific approach he is taking on that Twitter account, as it has the potential to antagonize his former colleagues at Google for no clear reason, which is not what I would have expected, and which I don’t think will help the situation. At the moment, I don’t consider the content objectionable per se if it was just about some random person out there, but as with everything else in this story, I fear things will be taken out of context and / or add to the polarization and further prevent a useful discussion.

I’m not blaming James for the storm overall. Quite the opposite! As far as we know, he was trying to have an internal discussion, and someone else at Google leaked it, which is not cool. What I am saying is that in this particular instance, I feel he may be hurting the chances for a conversation to some degree.

That said, at least there is some kind of conversation now.

There’s no clear end to all of this yet, and I’d be happy to be proven wrong regarding some of my speculation here.

Again, you can judge for yourself as for the content on that account, and whether it’s authentic or not.

If I hear about any definite information about the account being fake, I will of course update this post.

Well, let’s see what happens next…

UPDATE 2017-08-11 11:02 UTC: note that if the Twitter account is fake, then so is the LinkedIn account (I’m not going to link to it for the reason listed below), as it points to the Twitter account.

The Google memo story is starting to become more and more disturbing…

Now it looks to me that people are trying really hard to destroy the reputation of James Damore, by means of impersonation. If this is true, this is really perverse.

And just wait until the media reports on this… They have another chance to do their jobs, but I’m not holding my breath.

At the very least – be very, very skeptical of any account or statement that is claimed to be made by James Damore. See screenshots below.

I won’t go much into the background here, please see my previous posts for more details:

• My initial reaction
• On media responses

At the time of writing this, the “fired4truth” account on Twitter ( @fired4truth ) now has 25000 followers. I’m not linking to it here, in the hopes that it doesn’t get further promoted by whatever little amount by search engines and whatnot.

Already, there is questionable content on this account which does not fit with James’ character, as you’ll see below. He’s been quoted as saying “I love Google” – after he was fired! – and all of a sudden he would do something like this? I doubt it…

So, first, what is one of the reasons I think this account is fake? Take a look at this screenshot: (click to enlarge)

The account looks like this:

Again, I’m not linking to any tweets.

That said, all I had to do to find the first tweet was to search on Twitter for: James Damore fake account