how it feels to spectate the lives of others who seemingly have it better than me through social media

​ @ube

brains are so gross im glad i dont have one

< (EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME SHOULD DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE )

@neko @Suiseiseki quoth ISO/IEC 9899:1999 6.7.2.1.13, it is technically legal,

A pointer to a structure object, suitably converted,
points to its initial member (or if that member is a bit-field,
then to the unit in which it resides), and vice versa. There
may be unnamed padding within a structure object,
but not at its beginning.

but please refer to picrel:

@Junes its the only thing i had at the moment, they still died so i wont complain

#dreamjournal traveled to australia, 2 huge spiders in the doorway. i sprayed them with detergent. the next way i woke up and kill more spiders on the wall, and while going outside the spiders explode into a mesh of webs and newly hatched spiders that engulf the entire building and i manage to kill them all off with a whole bottle of raid. i later see that i got bitten on my foot twice and remove the dead spiders stuck to my sole

now were talking

what did i even do to get these

is it love or mind control?

程式設計師是我的敵。
我不希望傷害電腦科學家。

@icst @sam it isn't idiot-proofing. in fact, it lets people who can actually reason about memory semantics program and be sure about it. sel4 wasn't made as some kind of academical joke. it takes actual skill and effort to program and reason about them, which is why no open source project even attempts to use frama-c.

i'm not sure if you actually believe all the safety measures in planes are "idiot-proofing", because we'd have a much higher rate of planes falling out of the sky. is autopilot for idiots? i'd say using c software is like flying a boeing, and using rust software is like flying an airbus. can you clarify what "idiot-proofing" measures made the planes crash?

this "be more careful" "skill issue" mindset is why software will absolutely NEVER graduate to a serious engineering discipline until we treat large-scale software faults as seriously as the NTSB treats aerospace incidents [no matter how minor]. you think aviation companies would be fine if their response to an incident which _could_ have caused massive loss of life would be "well, no one DID get hurt, it was just a little woopsie" that they put out on a blog post?

my point is is that i believe that people saying skill issue is like mechanics saying this to other mechanics when they fuck something up. what doesn't make sense is that if a mechanic fucks up, and then that leads to an in-flight incident, and then the blame is identified with the _pilot_ for having a 'skill issue'.

@icst @sam also i forgot to mention ATS, which is probably the closest to a "perfect language" that i can think of that isn't GC'd with linear and dependent types (with no soundness issues), has bare metal performance, and can guarantee safety by formal verification, https://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/, but it's still in an experimental state because it's developed some random chinese professor and people are too busy providing shareholder value instead of caring about better solutions.

@icst @sam i forgot to mention cve-rs, right, this is a rust specific issue and a hole in their type system(i can explain it further if you want), and moreso because it doesnt have the ability for the user to provide additional proofs for safety, like Coq or Lean. you should take a look at formal verification and type systems, the "just be careful" argument has been proven false time and time again. (rust is not a good example, but i chose as it is more familiar)

i literally mentioned how hardware is supposed to run correctly almost all the time, hardware bugs are why stuff like microcode updates exist. they're not supposed to be there. also, for these hardware quirks, formal semantics for the x86 memory model exist, like https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/weakmemory/x86tso-paper.tphols.pdf, we should strive to be more correct on the get go, not just "git gud".

>but on bare metal its going to be a nightmare no matter what lang you use to debug
have you heard of Ada/SPARK? the reason the united states government uses it is to specifically prevent these kinds of bugs by specifying constraints that these things will never happen by formally defining the semantics of the program and proving it is mathematically sound. things like Frama-C/ACSL, for example, let you verify C in a similar manner, but i have literally *never* seen C programmers use it, even though they always bring it up as an example to say C can be safe. maybe the kernel can actually try using it.
[
imagine if in aviation we had serious contingents of people saying "GPWS's? that's WOKE!" and not only saying that, but going "hell yeah! REAL PILOTS don't use TCAS or GPWS or AoA sensors!". like holy shit lol.
but, we don't have that. because aviation is a serious, mature field. they know it's GOOD to have all risk exposure, human error, and so on built OUT of the system.

meanwhile in software? "Hell yeah, I'm a real man for not caring about types, tests, and safety!"
]

i actually dont like rust because its nowhere near as good as other better languages like Lean or Coq, but it's miles, *miles* better than c.

@icst @sam as much as i would like this to be the case, it is not. just look at the vulnerabilities from openssl or any other codebase with a bunch of manually written assembly, it’s always the c parts. c exclusively has numerous terrible design decisions that it forced upon others, that were originally not found in any other languages and were forced upon them due to compatibility. (i wasnt talking about performance. sam was probably talking about something else, like janky cross compilation support)

for GC free high performance languages, there’s a lot of experimental languages that employ the notion of linear types, rust uses a restricted variant of it called affine types, thats how it guarantees ownership and memory integrity. if you disregard them as “memelangs”, i have no words for you. [counterargument 1, unsafe rust: you can also write *(volatile int *)0=0; in c, this is not an argument. you cant really catch this in c either if it was slipped in unless you actually run it or spend hours on valgrind. rust just makes it obvious from the beginning that you could be doing something wrong. also safe rust basically means it’s mathematically proven to not cause memory errors (memory leaks on the other hand are very hard to define, this is for later). counterargument 2, hardware failures: sure, but we do rely on the notion that hardware runs correctly 99.999% of the time, don’t we?]

g*lang is also terrible, just because some people were too dumb to understand runtime.Gosched() doesn’t mean they needed to make threads forcibly preempt every 10ms with no option to disable it

@sam retards who say "your compiler/runtime/whatever is in c" as if its an argument is like saying microsoft edge is good because everybody uses it to download chrome