[Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:

>> It hopefully will not ever matter.
>
>  it will not ever matter.

>>  I fear taking away too much of your time
>> when you have more urgent things to do.

 ok: let me expand on the above "it will not ever matter".  if you
don't mind me pointing this out, you've demonstrated that you're
unable to follow comprehensive logic.  this is what's taking up my
time.

 boolean logic from programming gives us chains: A AND B AND C etc. is
only true *if all* A, B, C etc. are true.  thus if we have even one
single statement that is false, the entire chain falls down.  likewise
with A OR B OR C: this is true if even *one* of A, B or C is true.
thus, the only way for an OR-chain to be false is if *all* statements
are false.

 i have (so far) demonstrated two things:

 (1) that there exists SIX separate statements found so far which make
a CoC utterly and fatally unsuitable for use.  it doesn't matter if
you were to disagree with five of them: the last remaining one would,
all on its own, be sufficient grounds to carpet-bomb a CoC into
complete oblivion.

 (2) that for the Bill of Ethics all examples given (so far -
admittedly only two but there was additional analysis as well) stand
up to scrutiny.  thus in the case of the BoE it stands up to the "AND"
chain of logic.

now, despite this, you keep presenting "fear, fear, fear, doubt, fear,
i'm afraid, i hope it won't matter" - as in, you're not following the
chain of logic, you're not following the analysis, and are stuck in
"fear".

it's fine to have doubts, and it's fine to not have "all the answers".
in fact, up until i read the BoE it had never occurred to me that
"certainty" is a Really Bad Idea, but it now makes a lot of sense.

 but if for all analysis of document (1) the pointers analysed *so
far* all say "EPIC SPECTACULAR FAIL" and for document (2) the pointers
analysed *so far* all say "REASONABLE PASS", further discussion is
soomewhat superfluous until such time as there is further additional
examples or cases to add to (1) or (2).  actually, given that (1) is
so toxic in such an overwhelming number of ways it hardly warrants
*any* further presentation of examples.  that just leaves (2) for
which further examples and/or cases would prove to be useful to
analyse, to ensure that they pass.

 unit tests, in other words.

l.