Notices by Matthew Garrett (mjg59@nondeterministic.computer), page 5

@Suiseiseki The only way that source code distribution could be required is if software licenses can apply, so why do you think that would apply to Linux in mask ROM but not Intel microcode?

Today's worst argument for the FSF's position on microcode - that the shipped microcode is hardware, not firmware, so can't be constrained by licenses. NEC v. Intel established that mask ROM microcode was copyrightable back in *1989*.

@Suiseiseki Microcode in an Intel CPU is not hardware circuits - it's software. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. When you power on an Intel CPU it runs code out of ROM that performs a series of operations (including performing cryptographic validation of other blobs) before jumping to the reset vector. And, well, good luck making the argument that there's no license associated with that - would you argue that a copy of Linux in ROM creates no GPL obligations?

When it comes to non-free firmware I think there's two reasonable positions - treat it like non-free code running on a remote system (suboptimal, outside the scope of current free software priorities) or treat it like software running on the primary CPU (all code on the local system should be free software, no matter where it's running). I think the FSF's position is unreasonable: https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/70895.html

Today's discovery: gcc will remove calls to memcpy() with a len of 0 (good), knows it's UB to call memcpy() with a dest of NULL (spec compliant), will assume that dest can't be NULL (fucking compilers, man), will combine both to engage in this UTTERLY PATHOLOGICAL BEHAVIOUR https://godbolt.org/z/bGqM6arGT

@skullhoney @lxo @quasi well that doesn't answer my question

@GossiTheDog said employer decided to complain to me, despite at the time me literally being on Microsoft campus working on secure boot and UEFI interoperability, which was the point I decided to quit

When you're definitely going to have a good day

All seems good now and I have a boarding pass, unsure what the actual issue was

@lxo I'm genuinely confused. You accused me of having defamed you, but given I never claimed you were transphobic I don't know what you believe I incorrectly accused you of!

@lxo Can you link to where you answered it? I'm sorry, I don't remember seeing this.

@lxo despite me having asked, you still haven't explained what I said that was false - as far as I can tell I did no such thing.

What's the probability that any one human on the planet understands a computer from the level of lithography to JavaScript and literally everything in between

@lxo ugh look I'm sorry this has ended up fairly confrontational and whoever I think is wrong here that's my fault. Is there a better way to actually discuss this, because I think it's genuinely important?

@lxo person A made an unambiguously transphobic argument. Person B argued against them. You criticised person B, and then questioned whether person A's argument was actually transphobic because maybe the person it was aimed at isn't a trans woman.This isn't complicated! Don't pretend it's confusing!

@lxo it makes no difference! The argument made was transphobic no matter who it was aimed at

@lxo but you criticised the person criticising the transphobe, not the transphobe

@lxo you expressed disgust to the person criticising the transphobe because you thought you might be heard, and ignored the transphobe because you thought you wouldn't be? How do you think that looks to trans people who want to feel safe within our community? Speaking out isn't just about changing minds, it's also about setting boundaries and making it clear what we're willing to accept.

@lxo but you felt it more important to express your disgust at the manner someone was expressing disagreement than at the claim that womanhood is defined by simple genetics?

Look, I *know* you have no intent to be transphobic. I believe that you accept gender self identity as a fundamental human right. But you're unfamiliar with the way transphobes couch their arguments in fake respectability, and in this case you chose to target the person criticising the transphobe instead of the transphobe.

@lxo Well I guess that takes us full circle back to https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/113570633315051759 - the argument that a woman isn't really a woman due to some genetic factor is inherently a transphobic argument even if it's currently being directed at a woman who wouldn't describe herself as trans.