What the repo contains should not be very relevant. Proprietary and GPLed software can be in the same repo/disk/etc. We even see this in the official git repo with non-free firmware. Instead the concern is about what code the terminal application ends up using and what it links with. If his terminal did not link to any weird stuff then it is probably the case that they could avoid it as well. Also don't forget that the GPL contains an exception for system libraries specifically.
As for the segregation policy, it sounds like a self-imposed problem.
Personally I think that he owes them nothing, especially after the way he was treated in https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10362 so I can't comprehend statements which claim that he was an asshole for using GPL.
"Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court"
This is debatable, especically for anyone who followed Murray's reporting. Here are a few random links that I had bookmarked that give a different opinion. I could possibly find more but I really do not want to spend the rest of the day on this.
I also think that you misunderstood what the parent said, I took it to mean that the court could deny it because they could hypothetically decide that it wasn’t a crime according to UK law
So, just to make this clear, you were aware from the very start that
- At 2017 when the study was made, CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics".
- The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game.
- The two 2017 CLBG examples that hayley-patton linked are exactly the same in the study's github repo.
But despite that, you decided to waste everyone's time and your real complaint is that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 should have linked at the github links that I posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548339 even though contents are exactly the same (at least as far as the argument is concerned, I have not and will not check if one of the versions has an extra ; or whatever), is that right?
Edit: it came to my attention that you are the one running CLBG, you might want to mention that (either on your profile or on your posts) when you engage in CLBG-related arguments.
"Crimean Tartar community members were kidnapped, arrested, disappeared, deported or killed before, during and after the referendum"
Even if this is true[1] I do not see how this would alert the result of the referendum, given the amount of people who voted in support of joining Russia.
[1] this article is the first time that I saw such a claim. I might search about it later.
"and that the very question posed in the referendum was completely biased"
The question as posted in Wikipedia seems reasonable to me.
"Your statement seems to imply that Ukraine is not a sovereign country, otherwise it pains me to understand how it could be 'separatist'. Care to elaborate?"
I mean regarding the currently occupied territories/after a future annexation of Ukraine.
"do speak of 'elimination'"
Sure, of the ideas of "sovereignty, nationhood, and nationality", not of the people themselves.
"Since the elimination of a nationality and its culture is what's known as committing a genocide"
I (and as I perceive it, the majority of the people) do not personally consider the elimination of the idea of a nationality as genocide. I could perhaps be willing to entertain the idea of a cultural genocide (it is however questionable that this is what is planned for the Ukrainians) but I would not equate it to an actual genocide.
"are you saying that Spain is committing a genocide in Catalonia?"
I have seen some arguing it, but it is not something that I personally believe.
"Virtually nobody on "the left" will ever claim that France and the UK should have not declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland so as to decrease suffering."
For this I have the following possible explanations:
- They supported a war against Germany not for the protection of Poland but in order to topple the fascist government and stop the atrocities that were being committed.
- They supported an early war against Germany because they believe that the German government would keep going with their demands and that the war was inevitable.
- They are against the war but admitting it would be a social suicide.
- They don't have an opinion about it or just have not voiced an opinion about it. (as it is an event that happened decades ago instead of one that is happening at this moment)
"funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic."
This is interesting. What is their usual counterargument? I Presume that they either don't have a consistent logic behind it or they believe that protecting Ukraine would not benefit the common people (or would benefit them marginally) in comparison to the Spanish civil war which in their mind supporting the republican side would benefit the common people enough to counterbalance the loss of lives.
"they appear to be just as dogmatic and just as monstrous as the fascists."
I can't understand this claim. Fascists are dogmatic because they are unwilling to even listen and attempt to oppress opposing viewpoints. They are monstrous because they use violence and threats to eliminate whoever they consider as undesirable or as an opponent. Which of the two did Chomsky do?
"In your interview to Jeremy Scahill at The Intercept from April 14, 2022 you claimed: “The fact of the matter is Crimea is off the table. We may not like it. Crimeans apparently do like it.” We wish to bring to your attention several historical facts:"
It then mentions the Budapest memorandum which has nothing to do with whether the people living in Crimea like it or not. Then it mentions that "Crimeans" is not a thing, it is clear that by "Crimeans" Chomsky meant the people living in Crimea. Then he mentions that Crimean Tatars are the indigenous people of Crimea, which while I expect it to be considered as true by most people, I do not think that it really matters, after all nobody really cares about the Anatolian Greeks in Turkey. It then mentions that the referendum was held at gunpoint, which I am not sure what it is supposed to mean, could they not vote whatever they wanted in it? As for whether it was declared invalid by the UN assembly, this is irrelevant as to whether the people living in Crimea like it or not.
"In contrast, we argue that prosecuting Putin for the war crimes that are being deliberately committed in Ukraine would set an international precedent for the world leaders attempting to do the same in the future."
This open letter does not try to justify this argument. I would claim that it is false, just consider the various attempts to charge various fighters (in Iraq and other places) against the US with war crimes while at the same time the US refuses to do the same for its own solders.
"Unconditional surrender and then elimination of Ukrainians off the face of the Earth (see above)?"
Here they try to imply that the objective is to kill every Ukrainian while not explicitly mentioning it, while it seems that the goal is to instead eliminate the idea of Ukrainian separatism. (kinda like Spain and Catalonia)
"If you truly value Ukrainian lives as you claim to, we would like to kindly ask you to refrain from adding further fuel to the Russian war machine"
This open letter does not try to justify why they think that providing military assistance to Ukraine will lead to less deaths compared to what Chomsky thinks.
Edit: Please do not take this post as a sign of support of any side. Rather it is just criticism of the specific open letter.
As for the segregation policy, it sounds like a self-imposed problem.