The Unclear Impact

Krist贸f Marussy ferdium馃巰 |

I'm a researcher working on the extra-functional requirements and formal verification of cyber-physical system architectures.
I also like free (as in liberty) software, privacy enhancing technologies, and cryptography.

I may not be trans but transgender hating script kiddies are too incompetent to tell the difference. Donkey Kong says trans rights = human rights.

arch linux

if resume from hibernation from a swap file is not working on [testing] currently, probably (the lack of) this is the reason:

@shriramk i guess then if it's doing bugger all, it's \prod


intellij decided to crash #swayvm sporadically, so it's relegated into a nested sway session until i can figure out what's going wrong blobfoxannoyed

To FLOSS projects but also individuals: Please stop relying on GitHub, Discord or other proprietary services. What happened to Twitter and Unity WILL happen to them as well.

Also people shouldn't have to use proprietary software or services to contribute to FLOSS projects, that just doesn't make any sense.


java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot read field 鈥淲鈥 because 鈥渢his鈥 is null

this doesn鈥檛 sound healthy at all

(trying to cross-build a docker container for aarch64 using jlink with buildx and qemu binfmt_misc)

rust, java, cursed

i have a sudden urge to combine tauri with the jni invocation api

re: linux

@robby i accidentally rsynced something to my server into the directory named '~' instead of into my home directory, and i tried to get rid of it

(a very poor man鈥檚 deployment solution when i work on the app at 鈥 rsync the jar into my home directory, then sudo mv into /var/lib where it should live and restart the corresponding systemd service. the funny thing is that this project is sponsored by amazon science, but we have our AWS guy on vacation, and debugging research software on my own VPS is much easier)


so i just issued the command rm -rf ~ instead of rm -rf '~' blobfoxfacepalm

good thing i have btrfs snapshots

i wish i understood more Coq (or french in general)

No, academics do not "forget" to answer emails. They remember and feel bad about them, the guilt slowly building up, until the only way out is to fake their own death and move far, far away under a different identity to build a new life, a better one, with inbox zero and no shame

Anyways, I owe you an email.

The Right to Lie: Google's "Web Environment Integrity" Proposal is a Geyser of Badness Threatening to Swamp the Open Web.

If your computer can鈥檛 lie to other computers, then it鈥檚 not yours.

This is a fundamental principle of free and open source software. The World Wide Web abides by this principle, although we don鈥檛 often think of it that way. The Web is just an agreed-on set of programmatic interfaces: if you send me this, I鈥檒l send you that. Your computer can construct the 鈥渢his鈥 by whatever means it wants; it鈥檚 none of the other side鈥檚 business, because your computer is not their computer.

Google鈥檚 so-called 鈥淲eb Environment Integrity鈥 plan would destroy this independence. 鈥淚ntegrity鈥 is exactly the wrong word for it 鈥 a better name would be the 鈥淏rowser Environment Control鈥 plan.

In the normal world, you show up at the store with a five dollar bill, pick up a newspaper, and the store sells you the newspaper (and maybe some change) in exchange for the bill. In Google鈥檚 proposed world, five dollar bills aren鈥檛 fungible anymore: the store can ask you about the provenance of that bill, and if they don鈥檛 like the answer, they don鈥檛 sell you the newspaper. No, they鈥檙e not worried about the bill being fake or counterfeit or anything like that. It鈥檚 a real five dollar bill, they agree, but you can鈥檛 prove that you got it from the right bank. Please feel free to come back with the right sort of five dollar bill.

This is not the Open Web that made what鈥檚 best about the Internet accessible to the whole world. On that Web, if you send a valid request with the right data, you get a valid response. How you produced the request is your business and your business alone. That鈥檚 what software freedom is all about: you decide how your machinery works, just as other people decide how their machinery works. If your machine and their machine want to talk to each other, they just need an agreed-on language (in the case of the Web, that鈥檚 HTTP) in which to do so.

Google鈥檚 plan, though, steps behind this standard language to demand something no free and open source software can ever deliver: a magical guarantee that the user has not privately configured their own computer in any way that Google disapproves of.

The effrontery is shocking, to those with enough technical background to understand what is being proposed. It鈥檚 as though Google were demanding that when you鈥檙e talking to them you must somehow guarantee, in a provable way, that you鈥檙e not also thinking impure thoughts.

How could anyone ever agree to this nonsense? Must all our computers become North Korea?

The details of your own system鈥檚 configuration are irrelevant to 鈥 and unnecessary to accurately represent in 鈥 your communications with a server, just as your private thoughts are not required to be included, in some side-band channel, along with everything you say in regular language.

If a web site wants to require that you have a username and password, that鈥檚 fine. Those are just a standard part of the HTTP request your browser sends. But if a web site wants your browser to promise that it stores that username and password locally in a file named 鈥済oogle-seekritz.txt鈥, that鈥檚 not only weird and creepy, it鈥檚 also something that a free software (as in libre) browser can never reliably attest to. Any browser maintenance team worth its salt will just ship the browser with a default configuration in which the software reports that to Google when asked while, behind the scenes, storing usernames and passwords however it damn well pleases.

Indeed, the fundamental issue here is the freedom to have a 鈥渂ehind the scenes鈥 at all. Environments in which people aren鈥檛 allowed to have a 鈥渂ehind the scenes鈥 are totalitarian environments. That鈥檚 not an exaggeration; it鈥檚 simply the definition of the term. Whatever bad connotations the concept of totalitarianism may have for you, they come not from the fancy-sounding multi-syllabic word but from the actual, human-level badness of the scenario itself. That scenario is what Google is asking for.

My web browser (currently Mozilla Firefox running on Debian GNU/Linux, thank you very much) will never cooperate with this bizarre and misguided proposal. And along with the rest of the free software community, I will continue working to ensure we all live in a world where your web browser doesn鈥檛 have to either.

(Cross-posted at .)

"Web Environment Integrity" explained:

1. You request content from the web site "site.example"

2. You send a photo of you to the third party "authority.example". No worries, you can blur your face.

3. authority.example ensures that you:
- have put on a hat (brands X, Y accepted)
- wear a T-shirt (brand X, Y, or Z)
- sit on a chair (type C only, brand X or Y)

It gives you back a token.

4. You give the token to site.example

5. site.example serves you content

Happy open web!


The repository contains a proposal for a piece of malware which, through remote attestation, directly threatens browser diversity (by only allowing officially certified builds of a handful of browsers to access webpages), operating system diversity (by only allowing certified builds of certain operating systems), device diversity (by only allowing devices with certified firmware) and computer architecture diversity (by only allowing architectures where such certified firmware, OS, and browsers exist). As such, it poses a critical threat to innovation and free and open source software.

By taking away users鈥 ability to customize their user agents, computing technology not only becomes solely a vehicle for corporate profit, but we also risk extinguishing the very human curiosity and experimentation that is needed to produce the next generation of developers. More broadly, by forcing people to watch advertisements in their browser without the possibility filtering in order to access any web service (likely including government services), we expose citizens to mandatory misinformation. Locked down platforms also promote government surveillance and control, destroying democracy itself by removing the possibility of protest and dissent.

While some people might be able to buy a non-locked down device (in addition to a locked-down device required to access websites with integrity requirements), the proposal discriminates against people with no economic means to do so. Disabled people are also discriminated against, especially if they need accessibility tools not certified and locked down for attestation.

Therefore, any attempt to lock down the web and adopt DRM ubiquitously should be stopped at all costs.


who will write magisk for the web and how long will they take to get hired by google anyways?

@reto it probably works 鈥 but i set up UKI and signing before systemd 253 (so no ukify) and never bothered to migrate

when my script finally broke, i was trying to fix my system that didn鈥檛 boot and just went with the first option for building a UKI from the arch wiki opened on my phone

hacked the userChrome.css of the new @thunderbird 115 a bit to make it better fit my mostly vimix themed desktop (sans the redaction bars)

i guess i could make a theme, but this is easier blobfoxlaughsweat

screenshot of the toolbar and some of the message list view of thunderbird 115 with customized colors, increased UI density, semi-transparent search bar on the right, full width quick filter bar, and hidden year switcher in the agenda view. some mailboxes and e-mails were redacted with black bars

apparently, my EFI UKI building script hodge-podged together with objcopy stopped working, so i moved to building UKI with mkinitcpio

so far so good blobfoxcomfycomputer

the fact that some people find LLMs useful for writing code is not a credit to LLMs but an indictment of the average signal to noise ratio of code: it means that most code is confusing boilerplate -- boilerplate because a statistical model can only reliably reproduce patterns that reoccur many times across its training corpus, and confusing because otherwise-intelligent people capable of convincing a hiring manager that they are competent programmers find it easier to ask a statistical model to produce an incorrect prototype they must debug than write the code themselves. we all know from experience that most code is bad, but for LLMs to be able to write more-or-less working code at all indicates that code is much worse than we imagine, and that even what we consider 'good' code is from a broader perspective totally awful. (in my opinion, it is forced to be this way because of the way we design programming languages and libraries.)

@tuxedocomputers perfect, thanks!