2DArray
@2DArray
#pico8
c={1,2,136,137,9,135,7,7}for i=1,8 do
pal(i-1,c[i],1)end
fillp(4680)q=circfill::_::cls()a=t()/4
for i=0,6 do
q(64,68,30-i*4,i*17+16)end
for z=60,4,-2 do
for x=-z,z do
c=mid(6.5-abs(x)/3,5,1)
q(64+x*64/z,64+64*(sin(a+(x+z)/20)+8)/z,96/z,c+flr(c+.5)*16)end
end
flip()goto _
Embedded video
9:09 AM · Sep 9, 2019·Twitter Web App
101
Retweets
455
LikesElaborate, I know the five people that meme "What programming language is this?"To my knowledge I am the only person in /prog/ who has posted a git repo with haskell in it, and I do not make ``What programming language is this?'' posts.
RMS may be a smelly fanatic, but he did deliver GCC and a lot other stuff and did more for everyone than almost anybody else in the scene ever will.
1. Not a problem at all. As if he couldn't. As if the USA was worth any more than other countries and couldn't be dislikeWhy wont you migrate to Russia then? What... you're already in Russia, mr Kremlin bot!
Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing
The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:Well, he says a few things, of varying levels of controversiality. However, with regards to your point 1: he does not indicate that he believes the girl was willing, only that she presented herself to Minsky as willing. In fact, he appears to suggest the very opposite of her being willing: namely, that she was forced (``coerced'') into having sex, only not by Minsky, but by Epstein. It's important to observe here that his email was not centered on the girl or on Epstein, but was sent only in a possible defense of Minsky, who is barely mentioned in any of these posts about him. Well, I'm sure I or anyone else could go on, but all I'm trying to say is that RMS said what he said, but this isn't the same as what some people appear to be saying he said.
“deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])”
The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed.)
Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong)
Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
Since then, through personal conversations, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
fasterHis first post about it was in 2006 or earlier though.
There is no question that forced online sexual activity – whether through text, animation, malicious scripts or other means – is real; and is a traumatic experience that can have a profound and unpleasant aftermath, shaking your faith in yourself, in the community, in the platform, even in sex itself.
I really, really, do not understand why some people's reaction to this is trying to get him fired or to apologize.Right here we have one human being that will ponder on random issues and offer his honest opinion. He will do it without regard for social pressure. This is an incredible rare thing! This is an amazing thing, go browse your Facebook or LinkedIn feed and see how "authentic" it sounds. What's more, this gentleman is a very rational person and does not shy away from thinking about pedophilia and various paraphilia. What's more he seems truly inquisitive in understanding how to measure what Minsky did, what motivations and perceptions each participant had, etc. This is so much more important than just getting revenge, being constantly angry on the internet or just saying Epstein was evil and calling it a day.
We need much, much more people like Stallman and much, much less people that will cry foul on a Medium post when someone doesn't go along with what they want.
SJWs? More like the same MIT staff that got Aaron Swartz killed:Spoiler: MIT staff are mostly cultural marxist SJWs that barely tolerated Stallman "Free as in freedom" antics.
In 1983 UniPress began selling Gosling Emacs on Unix for $395 and on VMS for $2,500,[6] after renaming it Unipress Emacs.[2] Controversially, it asked Stallman to stop distributing Gosling Emacs source code. UniPress never took legal action against Stallman or his nascent Free Software Foundation
BBEEEUUUUUUAAAAAHHHHH...
%%%%%%
%%%% = =
%%C >
_)' _( .' ,
__/ |_/\ " *. o
/` \_\ \/ %`= '_ .
/ ) \/| .^',*. ,
/' /- o/ - " % '_
/\_/ < = , ^ ~ .
)_o|----'| .` '
___// (_ - (\
///-( \' \ RMS gave a keynote at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit in which he described "EMACS virgins" as "women who have never used EMACS" and said that it was a sacred duty to "relieve them of their virginity".
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
All the "walled garden" dystopian ecosystems are based on OSSthat's technically true - their're are based on OSS, not on what RMS prefers ('free software'). I'd argue that modern (v3) GPL is primarily an anti-walled garden license
there's no need to reverse engineer GPL software because it gives you source
and there's no way GPL (which is a license) could guarantee the right to reverse engineer non-GPL software (because it has a different license with no such guarantees),
How do you know whether pieces of some binary came from (or just happened to have the same sequence of bytes!) as in a GPL binary?For copyright you're supposed to prove the presence of copying, not the absence of not copying.
I am still the head of the GNU Project (the Chief GNUisance),
and I intend to continue as such.
