<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://chaos.social/@Nabla" class="u-url mention">@<span>Nabla</span></a></span> <a href="https://github.com/amaranth-lang/rtl-debugger" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">github.com/amaranth-lang/rtl-d</span><span class="invisible">ebugger</span></a> but it&#39;s very early and it&#39;s not really usable by end users yet</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> is this available anywhere. I really appreciate tooling for this kind of stuff</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://social.treehouse.systems/@xsk" class="u-url mention">@<span>xsk</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://chaos.social/@esden" class="u-url mention">@<span>esden</span></a></span> aw! i&#39;m glad</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> This looks pretty interesting! Like the cadence waveform/source viewer, but in a more modern editor. ✨</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://fosstodon.org/@AdrianVovk" class="u-url mention">@<span>AdrianVovk</span></a></span> again I&#39;m not seeing the chain of evidence in that commit. If I find something that violates a technical spec, then my commitlog would contain a reference to which specific section of which spec says what. Why not have the same level of commit log quality here? Why are we satisfied with &quot;some undisclosed lawyer gave advice to do this&quot; as follow up to an email thread...</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://chaos.social/@LaF0rge" class="u-url mention">@<span>LaF0rge</span></a></span> The law makes no distinction between employees of banned companies working on their own time versus on company time. That&#39;s the legal basis of the move.</p><p>And frankly, I wouldn&#39;t want that distinction. The companies on the list are there for a reason: they&#39;re the ones building the tech used to commit the war crimes. The drones and missiles used run Linux. They can, b/c it&#39;s FOSS. But allowing the same people who make the weapons killing Ukrainians participate in our communities is on us.</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://floss.social/@gwidion" class="u-url mention">@<span>gwidion</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@dabeaz" class="u-url mention">@<span>dabeaz</span></a></span> I approach them as writing a whole lot of inline unit tests with a dedicated syntax and much lower runtime overhead and reduced visual noise compared to writing out the equivalent assertions.</p><p>So you *are* writing them for the tooling, but that&#39;s the same situation as any style of automated testing (if the test runner can&#39;t run the test, why have the test?)</p>

<p>my take on recent regrettable events in the <a href="https://chaos.social/tags/linux" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>linux</span></a> kernel community. <a href="https://laforge.gnumonks.org/blog/20241025-linux-maintainers-russian/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">laforge.gnumonks.org/blog/2024</span><span class="invisible">1025-linux-maintainers-russian/</span></a></p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> I have *got* to learn this power. Someday...</p>