8 ms·

According to Justine herself[1], POSIX specifically changed their rules to allow this type of functionality[2]. The paragraph you linked to was part of it, but

by imiric 2y ago

According to Justine herself[1], POSIX specifically changed their rules to allow this type of functionality[2]. The paragraph you linked to was part of it, but also this paragraph under RATIONALE[3]: > Earlier versions of this standard required that input files to the shell be text files except that line lengths were unlimited. However, that was overly restrictive in relation to the fact that shells can parse a script without a trailing newline, and in relation to a common practice of concatenating a shell script ending with an exit or exec $command with a binary data payload to form a single-file self-extracting archive. So Cosmopolitan indeed seems to be POSIX-approved as far as this behavior goes. [1]: https://justine.lol/cosmo3/ https://justine.lol/cosmo3/ [2]: https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1250 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1250 [3]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/sh.html#tag_20_110_18 https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/s...

oguz-ismail 2y ago
[flagged]
- Y_Y 2y ago
  I think this isn't an entirely worthless comment, but you start off by insisting that Justine Tunney is referred to as "himself". This is either a silly mistake, or a misguided political statement. Either way I don't think it adds to the discussion, and it's certainly going to distract people from your more interesting point that mixing binary data throughout the shell script is not permitted by the standard.
  - sgammon 2y ago
    They made this comment as a correction. It is intentional. When somebody shows you who they are, believe them.
    - AlexeyBelov 2y ago
      And it's always the fresh accounts.
  - jart 2y ago
    It's not an interesting point, it's a willful misinterpretation of the intent of the standard made by someone who wasn't there. The worst thing about bigots is they usually hide it and grasp for other more socially acceptable reasons to make you miserable when you're someone like me. I'm astonished you would still continue to take them seriously after they've revealed their intent and motivation.
    - Y_Y 2y ago
      I apologise, my interpretation was naïve. Not being familiar with the intent of the person I was responding to (directly or by experience) and not knowing the how to correctly interpret the POSIX standard, I was trying to politely re-focus the thread. I'm lucky enough not to have to spend much time thinking about identity issues or being the target of bigotry and I suppose that was reflected in my previous comment. Maybe it's telling that you're here making fantastic contributions for FOSS and people who are trying to bring you down are only making invalid claims about standards compliance. I'm a big fan of yours and I'm really sorry that I contributed to that incident.
      - jart 2y ago
        Thanks and don't worry about it. The Hacker News community has always been so welcoming and supportive to me. I'm really lucky to have had the opportunity to serve you all these last four years. If you think this was an incident, you should have seen 4chan /g/ last year. Thankfully things have been going reasonably well for me since then. Ever since publishing https://justine.lol/matmul/ https://justine.lol/matmul/ I appear to have flipped the hater bit (see Paul Graham's blog) in the heads of even my most ardent detractors. So even on /g/ the disrespect has become somewhat rare these days.
- sgammon 2y ago
  It’s possible to disagree with someone without dehumanizing them. All you’ve done here is make yourself look bad.
  - bheadmaster 2y ago
    I wouldn't go so far as to call their comments dehumanizing. Rude and uncalled for - absolutely. But no part of their comment proclaims that the other person doesn't deserve basic human rights.
    - sgammon 2y ago
      Right to be recognized by the identity you give to the world. Respectfully, we disagree.
      - bheadmaster 2y ago
        Indeed we do. I was approaching human rights from the perspective of having a right to food, clean water and shelter, and not being threatened for your life every day. Having other people talk to you/about you the way you'd want somehow pales in comparison.
        sgammon 2y ago
        It might for you. That would be a myopic view of the world and of dehumanization by nearly any widely accepted definition.
        sgammon 2y ago
        Dehumanization is the result of treating a human like they do not have equal rights and dignities. If we decide that identity is a right within someone's control, that decision must be consistent. If I call you "Steve," and you correct me and say, "no my name is Bob," you have exercised what I see as your right of domain over your own identity. To preempt that right and respond with, "I prefer to call you Steve," would be absurd and rude. Also pointless. It would flout any right you have to decide who you are. To do this in an argument or confrontation easily results in dehumanization, merely by suggesting that one person is allowed to determine their own identity while another is not.

by imiric 2y ago

oguz-ismail 2y ago

[flagged]

Y_Y 2y ago
I think this isn't an entirely worthless comment, but you start off by insisting that Justine Tunney is referred to as "himself". This is either a silly mistake, or a misguided political statement. Either way I don't think it adds to the discussion, and it's certainly going to distract people from your more interesting point that mixing binary data throughout the shell script is not permitted by the standard.
- sgammon 2y ago
  They made this comment as a correction. It is intentional. When somebody shows you who they are, believe them.
  - AlexeyBelov 2y ago
    And it's always the fresh accounts.
- jart 2y ago
  It's not an interesting point, it's a willful misinterpretation of the intent of the standard made by someone who wasn't there. The worst thing about bigots is they usually hide it and grasp for other more socially acceptable reasons to make you miserable when you're someone like me. I'm astonished you would still continue to take them seriously after they've revealed their intent and motivation.
  - Y_Y 2y ago
    I apologise, my interpretation was naïve. Not being familiar with the intent of the person I was responding to (directly or by experience) and not knowing the how to correctly interpret the POSIX standard, I was trying to politely re-focus the thread. I'm lucky enough not to have to spend much time thinking about identity issues or being the target of bigotry and I suppose that was reflected in my previous comment. Maybe it's telling that you're here making fantastic contributions for FOSS and people who are trying to bring you down are only making invalid claims about standards compliance. I'm a big fan of yours and I'm really sorry that I contributed to that incident.
    - jart 2y ago
      Thanks and don't worry about it. The Hacker News community has always been so welcoming and supportive to me. I'm really lucky to have had the opportunity to serve you all these last four years. If you think this was an incident, you should have seen 4chan /g/ last year. Thankfully things have been going reasonably well for me since then. Ever since publishing https://justine.lol/matmul/ https://justine.lol/matmul/ I appear to have flipped the hater bit (see Paul Graham's blog) in the heads of even my most ardent detractors. So even on /g/ the disrespect has become somewhat rare these days.
sgammon 2y ago
It’s possible to disagree with someone without dehumanizing them. All you’ve done here is make yourself look bad.
- bheadmaster 2y ago
  I wouldn't go so far as to call their comments dehumanizing. Rude and uncalled for - absolutely. But no part of their comment proclaims that the other person doesn't deserve basic human rights.
  - sgammon 2y ago
    Right to be recognized by the identity you give to the world. Respectfully, we disagree.
    - bheadmaster 2y ago
      Indeed we do. I was approaching human rights from the perspective of having a right to food, clean water and shelter, and not being threatened for your life every day. Having other people talk to you/about you the way you'd want somehow pales in comparison.
      - sgammon 2y ago
        It might for you. That would be a myopic view of the world and of dehumanization by nearly any widely accepted definition.
      - sgammon 2y ago
        Dehumanization is the result of treating a human like they do not have equal rights and dignities. If we decide that identity is a right within someone's control, that decision must be consistent. If I call you "Steve," and you correct me and say, "no my name is Bob," you have exercised what I see as your right of domain over your own identity. To preempt that right and respond with, "I prefer to call you Steve," would be absurd and rude. Also pointless. It would flout any right you have to decide who you are. To do this in an argument or confrontation easily results in dehumanization, merely by suggesting that one person is allowed to determine their own identity while another is not.