hikari (etc) 🌟

many are under the illusion that ISO exists to develop and maintain standards. this is incorrect. since 1972, the goal of ISO has been to ensure as few people as possible can read the specification of the C programming language. initially this was achieved by not having it exist, but eventually it become necessary to actually create a specification, albeit with highly limited access.

some believe that this is done out of financial interest, but the true reason is altruistic and very serious.

Sep 10, 2023 at 1:44pmWeb
Show threadhikari (etc) 🌟Sep 10, 2023
the problem is that the C programming language specification has proven to be deeply toxic to the human brain. most humans are immune to it, but once a person has obtained a deep knowledge of software engineering, exposure to and comprehension of the full extent of the specification will almost inevitably drive a person insane. this has been repeatedly demonstrated in classified studies within ISO's BSL-5 infohazard laboratories.
Show threadhikari (etc) 🌟Sep 10, 2023
when this was first discovered, it presented a deep dilemma for the C standardisation project. several members immediately left the standardisation effort, hoping that, by not being around to see the final version, their lives might be spared. others, however, understood that a terrifying weight of responsibility now fell on their shoulders. the C standard could no longer be destroyed, so there was only one option left: containment.
Show threadhikari (etc) 🌟Sep 10, 2023
initially, the committee tried to simply delay the release of the specification. this was successful for a number of years, but it was realised, in time, that it was not possible to delay it forever. if outsiders began to suspect that the C standardisation project had stalled, there was a risk that they might independently recreate it and, perhaps unaware of the danger, release it. this could not be allowed to happen.
Show threadhikari (etc) 🌟Sep 10, 2023

things finally came to a head when the committee received an anonymous threat: if they did not finalise the specification within a year, their most recent working draft would be publicly adopted, whether they liked it or not.

naturally, this resulted in uncontrolled panic within the inner circle. they could not be sure this was not a bluff. something had to be done.

Show threadhikari (etc) 🌟Sep 10, 2023

it was at this point that the real research program began. clearly, the specification could not be fully contained. how, then, to minimise the damage?

after many experiments, an interesting result was found: certain programmers were apparently invulnerable. further analysis revealed that all of these programmers had something in common: they had all previously learned C by reading Kernighan and Ritchie's original C book.

Show threadhikari (etc) 🌟Sep 10, 2023

this mystified the committee. why would reading the book protect someone from the specification: wouldn't that familiarity with the language only make them more susceptible to it?

nonetheless, this was their only hope, and they clung to it. more experiments were done.

at long last, they obtained the critical insight: incorrect preconceived notions in the mind of the reader can protect them from correctly interpreting the specification.

Show threadhikari (etc) 🌟Sep 10, 2023
the rest, as they say, is history.
Show threadhikari (etc) 🌟Sep 10, 2023

with that, there was finally a workable plan. by combining an all-encompassing disinformation campaign with the standard ISO paywall, the committee could ensure that, in the first place, few would think they needed to read the specification; failing that, few would actually get hold of it; and failing that, very few would correctly understand it. with that, the specification could be "safely" released.

the rest, as they say, is history.

Show threadSaagar JhaSep 11, 2023
@hikari K&R is actually remarkably compatible with undefined behavior as we consider it today
Show threadPhil M0OFXSep 12, 2023
@hikari ...and the "undefined behaviour" is how they kept the darkest parts from being an intolerable infohazard?
Show threadskategoat 🐐 🇵🇸Sep 10, 2023
@hikari this is so good
Show threadarclightSep 11, 2023
@hikari The C in SCP stands for C...
Show threadNot a Spring OnionSep 12, 2023

@arclight @hikari

Actually, the original name for the ISO was "International Standards Foundation" (ISF).
"ISF", shifted by 10 characters, yields "SCP".
This was then seen as too obvious, so the name was changed to "International Standards Organization" (ISO).

Show threadTheIronFox(MOVED)Sep 30, 2023

@hikari

Secure
C
Programming

Show threadUrsidinoj/The BjornsdottirsSep 10, 2023
@hikari is this supposed to be an scp crossover?
Show threadgroxxSep 11, 2023
@hikari the C in SCP stands for C
Show threadNicholas WeaverSep 10, 2023

@hikari @alanc

I thought the specification is "EVERY C program has undefined behavior"

Show threadTim Ward ⭐🇪🇺🔶 #FBPESep 13, 2023

@hikari It also has as an objective making it impossible for any software system to get times and dates right, and in particular make it impossible for any two software systems to communicate times and dates, by charging money for ISO 8601. Which means that nobody has read it, because nobody can be bothered with negotiating the corporate bureaucracy to get it paid for.

So, in almost every case, software which claims to be "ISO 8601 compatible" is in fact compatible with passed down folklore as to what the standard might have said when someone actually read it a couple of decades ago.

Show threadMythic BeastsSep 13, 2023
@hikari my favourite quote is still the standards compliant quality manager who said 'under no circumstances should you attempt to assist the customer with their enquiry, as that may result in inconsistent experiences for customers...'
Show threadAlan BragginsSep 14, 2023
@beasts @hikari I assume (or at least hope) that's in a "transfer them to support, whose job, which they have been trained for, is to help using a consistent process" sort of way, not "nobody help, consistently".
Show threadAlan BragginsSep 14, 2023
@beasts @hikari I do remember ISO 9001 training which said, in essence, "it's okay for quality certification purposes to make shit up as you go along so long as your documented process says you make shit up as you go along, but in practice people are embarrassed to document that so put better processes in place".
Show threadMythic BeastsSep 14, 2023
@armb @hikari I found a security issue with a bank violating it's own calling policies but apparently telephones were out of scope for their ISO27001 certification. Make sense, nobody has ever stolen money from a bank by phoning them up and claiming to be someone else so that can definitely be excluded.
Show threadMythic BeastsSep 14, 2023
@armb @hikari who's consistent process was to fail to answer it, then have it escalated back to you...
Show threadMichael RichardsonSep 14, 2023
@hikari https://archive.org/details/exploringinterne00carl
Exploring the Internet, A Technical Travelogue : Carl Malamud : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Internet Archive
Show threadMichael RichardsonSep 14, 2023
@hikari "The reason I visited 21 countries in six months, embarking on a technical voyage of discovery, can be traced back to an encounter I had with a platoon of bureaucrats. In June, 1991, I struck a deal with the Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), coordinators of the very formal process which eventually results in standards such as the Blue Book: 19,000 pages of international recommendations which define the operation of data networks, telephone systems, and other aspects of communication."
Show threadMichael RichardsonSep 14, 2023
@hikari "The deal was that the ITU would give me a copy of the standards in the antiquated online format they used for text processing and that I would convert the standards into something the rest of us could deal with and publish the standards on the global Internet. Instead of charging obscene amounts of money for this information, the standards would be available to anybody at no charge."
Show threadMichael RichardsonSep 14, 2023
@hikari "Organizations, rhetoric notwithstanding, don’t work for such lofty goals as the dissemination of knowledge. The real reason for this breakthrough in standards distribution was that the ITU couldn’t figure out how to convert their own data from the proprietary box they had built around themselves. My offer to do the conversion seemed an easy way out of a job they had estimated at U.S. $3.2 million. In return for converting the data and giving them a copy, I could publish on this Internet thing, this academic toy."
Show threadMichael RichardsonSep 14, 2023
@hikari "The ITU gave me half the data they promised and conveniently lost half the documentation to their Byzantine (both in age and in complexity) formatting system. Then, after a mere 90 days, the ITU abruptly cancelled distribution on the Internet. The academic toy, to the bureaucracy’s horror, turned out to have over seven million people. They were shocked to see hundreds of thousands of ITU documents being accessed by thousands of people in dozens of countries."