Notices by Matthew Garrett (mjg59@nondeterministic.computer), page 7

@GreenSkyOverMe Why was it in .info? Nothing else was at the time.

@paul_ipv6 But why only for this one device?

This is weird - IPv6 is working fine for most of my devices (can ping google.com, for instance). But on *one* device, ICMP packets go out, but no response comes back. If ping a machine I control I can see it generate reply packets, but tcpdump on the router's WAN port shows the outbound ICMP but no replies. Firewall is set to accept all IPv6. Anyone have any ideas?

Bizarrely sad that acpi.info (a domain that I absolutely hated when I first encountered it in oh good lord 2002) has fallen off the internet

@zip How would you proposition a group of people

"Did BIOS have as many security vulnerabilities as UEFI" well no because BIOS would just boot whatever the fuck you gave it and drew no security boundary between that and the firmware so by virtue of not attempting to be secure it had no vulnerabilities

Set of people who are all "We reverse engineered this CPU with an undocumented ISA and found a vulnerability that allowed us to flip a single bit in an HSE to obtain a key that allowed us to encrypt a payload that gave us arbitrary code execution on the ISS" and simultaneously also "It's literally impossible to prevent this single fucking guy from showing up at the event we run"

2024 has begun with discovering that my spouse had never seen Shia LeBeouf Live, so entering the year with the energy of gnawing my own leg off and then still beating a Hollywood celebrity in a fight to the death

Complaints about CEO salaries at non-profits are disproportionately targeted at people who aren't men and you should take that into account before amplifying them

@vaurora I don't fundamentally disagree and also would probably prefer someone else to be running the org, but also it's not clear that the amount she's paid is grossly incompatible with the amount of value produced? It feels like it's easier to argue about whether the incentive structure for what Mozilla produces is correct and whether this is the right way to achieve that

@luis_in_brief @sogrady @richardfontana I should point out that the author of the original WTFPL was a GNAA member

"But they might sue us if we kick them out!" for what? Just say that they're not welcome. There's no need to say why. You're not obliged to say anything that they could argue was defamatory. Refund them if you want to avoid an argument about that.

If people could easily win lawsuits over being kicked out of an event, every club on the planet that had barred someone for being an asshole would be out of business.

A common assertion is that conferences shouldn't remove anyone who hasn't been convicted in court. This means that conferences can't remove people who scream over speakers, who drunkenly harass other attendees, who shit in the catering, and so on - this may be disruptive, may even be criminal, but even if you saw it happen they haven't been found guilty and so should be allowed to continue attending.

I don't think people want to attend conferences run by people who sincerely believe this.

@lain your attendees should know whether someone is allowed to be at the event or not. They should not be left with a statement that implies one while actually the other is true.

Your attendees should be able to make an informed decision about how safe they'll be at your event. If you imply one outcome while allowing another you aren't giving them the information required to make that decision.

@feld @major "you are not welcome at this conference" isn't defamatory.

@feld @major sues for what? Refund their attendee fee and get on with life.

You're running a conference and you receive reports of an attendee having sexually assaulted people. You have 3 choices:
(1) you behave as if you believe the accusation. You make it clear that the alleged assailant is permanently banned.
(2) you behave as if you don't believe the accusation. You make it clear that the alleged assailant is still welcome.
(3) you choose neither, and imply that the alleged assailant is not welcome but do nothing to enforce that

(3) is the worst choice here

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2023-December/033317.html really feels like Old Internet (read the entire thread, it's amazing)

Oh, you think certificates are your ally. But you merely adopted the certificates; I was born with them, moulded by them