This appears to be the source of the backlash:
C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
31–40 of 122 posts
Re: C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
#32and r/cpp mods just woke up, banning everyone who question (am I still allowed to use that word?) this lunatic behavior. For context: A week ago, someone out for blood put out a slander article referencing this amongst other things. edit: After going on a banning spree, foonathan nuked the thread with "I am not going to deal with this on a Sunday". Nice
You were clearly banned for the comment where you used offensive slurs in reference to the author of a previously discussed blog post. I was happy to report the comment.
It was clearly not - as it was not the comment referenced in the ban. That - again - is an objective truth.
It word in the other comment was also not a slur, but - surprise surprise - the objective truth, again.
Re: C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
#33...according to alleged victim. Without more independent information or at least the other side's take this is just "aggrieved person is aggrieved" and ragebait.
Re: C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I participated for r/cpp for a very large number of years, including quite a number of high-impact posts - just not with that account. Interesting that you did not choose to voice your opinions using your main accounts on that community then. > And would you be so kind to actually link to the comment you banned me for? This is it, for everyone to see and judge: Nah, that was just the comment I used to get to your p…
> Interesting that you did not choose to voice your opinions using your main accounts on that community then. I'd love to, but reddit and cpp keep banning/suspending accounts - so I can't! Funny how that works isn't it? > Nah, that was just the comment I used to get to your profile. I banned you for insulting someone. That is not true. Here is the message: > Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating…
> That is not true.
I banned you, so I like to think I'm an authority on why you were banned. Here's a step by step timeline of what happened.
1. This comment of yours received a high number of reports and was automatically filtered: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1gyiwwc/comment/lyp3jl...
2. I agreed with the reports and removed your comments.
3. I read the rest of the comments in your thread, and noticed your username repeatedly. I wasn't familar with you, so when I reached https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1gyiwwc/c_standards_co... I clicked on your profile.
4. After noticing your lack of contributions to r/cpp, I decided you are just someone who causes moderation trouble without contributing useful technical insights, so I decided to ban you. That's why the above comment is listed in your ban reason. If you had posted the slur on an account with actual history in r/cpp and no previous removed comments, I would not have banned you.
Edit: 5. Reddit administrators have now removed your comment as well.
Re: C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those were my thoughts exactly - though it is 2024, and I have a sinking feeling it could be just as the article states.
The article clearly has gaps simply by not being an hour long read on the Atlantic, one obvious gap is that it doesn't seem to have a statement from the person removed after they were removed.
> one obvious gap is that it doesn't seem to have a statement from the person removed after they were removed.
I think the article is written by the person that was removed. It is lacking any statement of the standard foundation who removed him. No such statement exists, even on the internal committee mailing list it is just an "fyi, that person is no longer on the committee" without any reasons.
I can piece something together from his previous behavior on the committee mailing list, but that information is not public and I'm not at liberty to share.
Re: C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure complaining on HN about being banned from a subreddit makes much sense.
I think it's important context that this huge issue is being silenced on the largest c++ community
It's not silenced, the post is up for all to see. We have just disabled the ability to post new comments under it.
Re: C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
You were clearly banned for the comment where you used offensive slurs in reference to the author of a previously discussed blog post. I was happy to report the comment.
It was clearly not - as it was not the comment referenced in the ban. That - again - is an objective truth. It word in the other comment was also not a slur, but - surprise surprise - the objective truth, again.
Saying "XXX is an asshole" if XXX is in fact an asshole is also the objective truth, yet warrants removal for insulting someone.
Re: C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
#38While the title could indeed be a reference to the 4chan "The xxx question" meme (e.g., "The femboy question"), which is derived from "The Jewish question," it's not clear if that was the author's actual intention, and even if it was, most uses of the meme (see the femboy example) are not facially antisemitic and at worst are just examples of edgelord humor. It looks like C++ is finally succumbing to entryism, meanin…
> it's not clear if that was the author's actual intention The paper[1] doesn't appear to have any other connections to the book/response/memes. A clear distinction is that the UB paper very directly and prominently states the question, rather than cloaking it in allusion or having a lengthy preface trying to contextualize it. [1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p34...
My point was that at worst it was just some edgelord humor.
Re: C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> jump into wild nonsense conspiracy theory or extreme bigotry. Did they? The commenter was referring to "Simple Sabotage Field Manual", by the CIA. It's a very commonly cited list of actions to take, or that someone would take, to impede the effectiveness of an organization. The commenter was not saying "CIA did it, and birds aren't real".
Yeah appealing to that book is literally conspiracy nonsense when you're talking about a group of engineers trying to do good engineering. That appeal fundamentally means that there are people trying to actively sabotage a thing, that by itself is a conspiracy theory particularly when you consider that much of the standards committee has been doing standardization work for ages, and all of them are experienced engineers focused on engineering.
Prima facie claiming that people who are joining an optional group that puts out optional rules that companies can opt into implementing for the sake of sabotaging something in such an esoteric way is complete conspiracy nonsense.
Edit - LOL, step one of my conspiracy and get a PhD and work at a company for 10 years using a programming language so I can get someone kicked off an optional committee! Brilliant plan, no notes!!!
Re: C++ Standards Contributor Expelled for 'The Undefined Behavior Question'
#40The author of the paper is not competent in the subject matter.
A compiler can make assumptions that behavior is well defined, and it can also identify situations where it is confirmed undefined.
All of that reasoning happens before runtime.
For instance, and unreachable assertion works by invoking undefined behavior. What identified by the function-call-like syntax unreachable().
If we have:
S; unreachable();
And so we could naively argue that undefined behavior cannot travel backward in time. Of course S must successfully execute, and only then can things go haywire due to the undefined behavior of unreachable.
But that's not the way it works. The compiler is looking at this before runtime. The compiler is free to assume that behavior is well defined. That's what makes unreachable work: if the program's behavior is well defined, it must be that the unreachable statement is never reached. Which implies that S is never executed. If S is never executed, it can just be deleted.
If S and the unreachable statement are deleted, but control ends up there anyway, the program will go haywire. And it will go haywire without producing the effects of S. So in effect undefined behavior has gone backwards into S, so to speak in naive language.
Logical reasoning over code while translating it does not follow runtime chronology. It follows chains of inferences.