Elias @eliasr@librem.one

@lanodan @clacke Because in C you can write in your program things like this:

x = 5;
y = 2;
x = y;

that is complete bogus for a mathematician, if we just established that x is 5 and y is 2, then how the hell can x suddenly be equal to y. Madness! 🙂

Mathematicians understandably like the arrow or := much better.

@lanodan @clacke I had to look it up now, looks like PASCAL appeared in 1970 and C in 1972 so it's only 2 years difference. But C is a new language, compared to PASCAL. 🙂

About the assignment operator, I was teaching C to beginners and there was always the question why we need to write == in if statements. I wanted to say to the students, "well, I often wonder that myself".

It is especially confusing for students who know a lot of math, then assignment with a simple = is really confusing.

@clacke Looking in that 1974 ADT paper, for the examples they use some variant of PASCAL.

I remember coding in PASCAL. Takes me back to my early coding days, it was the second language I learned, after BASIC.

One really good thing in PASCAL that I saw now in that paper, is how you write assignments, to set x to 5 you write
x := 5
In my opinion that was much better than the x=5 that we write nowadays in these fancy-pancy new languages like C. 🙂

@akenyg Ja, du fick väl rätt då kanske, medan jag lät mig luras av namnbytet. 😕

@alexl@mstdn.io @FreePietje I was hoping that he could be made to see the point in respecting the FSF because I suspect that much of the "small tech" work he is doing is made possible thanks to GPL-licensed free software. But maybe that is too much to hope for. 🙂 Sigh.

@FreePietje @aral I agree with @FreePietje here, it is relevant to ask for improved processes within the FSF, but then please do so while respecting other people.

And that hit piece, okay let's stick with the term "inaccuaracies" but if you look a little closer (please do) you will find that, well, "inaccurate" does not fully cover it. Note that the inaccurate part is by far the most damning and probably the main reason so many got so upset. Textbook example of how rumors spread, I think.

@aral Are you sure that insulting people like that is what the free software community needs right now?
https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

@akenyg Jag kan nog hålla med där. Särskilt med tanke på namnbytet nyligen, det går ju inste ihop alls. Namnet ändras för att understryka liberalismen, samtidigt som liberalismen tydligen blivit mindre viktig för partiet i praktiken. Jag var annars glad över namnbytet, hoppades att det betydde något på riktigt, så det här känns lite snopet.

@silverwizard OK, I note that you did not comment on the fact that you spread some falsehood earlier, I hope that means you are not proud of it and will hopefully do it less in the future. Then, that is fine.

I'm going to sleep. Let's remember that we both agreed that Bradley M. Kuhn text is good, here it is again: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

Good night 🙂

@silverwizard No no, wait wait. I am not claiming that many accusers are lying. I have pointed to one specific falsehood which is that part regarding "entirely willing". That is false and you know it. If you forgot, please go and look it up again.

We are both aware of that falsehood, and you have been spreading that. I assume you were then not aware if was false, like so many others who have been spreading it. That is how rumors work. But now that you are aware, please stop spreading it?

@silverwizard Well you have been writing several times about RMS and "sexual harassment", but do I understand correctly now that you mean you are not accusing anyone of sexual harassment? You are just insinuating, and then you have no responsibility, you don't need to have any basis for that?

Even if you say you are not making accusations, your words matter.

Will you continue to spread the Selam G post even though you know about the significant falsehood it contains?

@silverwizard So I wonder now, what is the grounds for the accusations you are making? Please be specific, and stick to things that are true.

@silverwizard But now you are trying to somehow put the burden of proof on me, remember that you are the one making very serious allegations, then you are also the one who needs to present the basis you have for that.

The text by Bradley M. Kuhn that you referred to is great but it does not provide grounds for the accusations you are making. Then you had the Selam G text but that had that falsehood as a central part.

(to be continued)

@silverwizard If you agree to the above (that an accuser needs to present evidence and that the evidence should be based on facts, not lies, and that this is even more important if the allegation is serious), then I think you will also understand why I am not convinced and why it seems strange to me that you keep throwing such accusations when you apparently do not have a solid basis for them.

@silverwizard If you wanted to convince me, you would be better off to show something that does not have a lie in the center. It hurts the credibility of the rest of the information. It would have been much better to stay with facts.

Do you agree that when a serious allegation is made, it falls on the accuser to present solid basis for that accusation?

Do you agree that it is important to provide a basis for the allegation that is based on facts?

(to be continued)

@silverwizard Let me explain the situation this way:

You make a very serious allegation.

I assume we agree that when making an accusation, especially such a serious one, the accuser needs to present evidence.

When you present evidence that comes in the form of the Selam G post, which has as its centerpiece something that we both know is a lie.

(to be continued)

@hypolite @silverwizard wait, what? You think I should "stop interacting with strangers about this"?? @hypolite please explain what you mean by this, as it sounds like the exact opposite of what I think is needed here. I think we need more discussion with people who have different opinions, that is our best chance to understand how others think and to understand their point of view. I consider myself lucky to be able to reach @silverwizard here instead of having a complete echo chamber.

@silverwizard So to summarize what I wanted to say about those two links you mentioned: the Bradley M. Kuhn text is very good, I appreciate you bringing that up, but the Selam G text is not good, it is either very careless or deliberately dishonest. I hope I have succeeded in explaining why I think this. Do you understand what I mean about those two texts?

@silverwizard About the Selam G post "Remove Richard Stallman: Appendix A", note that it shows the headline "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’" and describes that as doing a "great job covering" things. As you and I both know, that headline is deceitful, the statement is simply not true. Yes it is held up as "great". That kind of disregard for facts is very harmful to honest discussion, in my opinion. (to be continued)