You can write unsafe code in Go (import unsafe), but then, you can do the same in Rust. Unsafe code is not the default, and in day to day Go i rarely see the use of the unsafe package.
What he probably means is data-races in go can result in memory/type unsafe accesses -- I suspect, likely due to slice types -- not sure if that is true/false.
Sure, but a data race is, IMHO not the same as memory safety. A data race, can be 100% memory safe, but just cause a logic bug in some program. I often see people mixing memory safety with racing. Go has bounds checks so you end up with a panic either way. Not UB.
As an (outside go) example, Ocaml (5) promises strong memory safety, but not to be data race free. A data race is not something we can prevent, because its usually not bound by code, but by time and the race-source rarely in source-code.
This means we have data races in http, database inserts etc. The source is usually not a concurrent task in source code-land.
Now you are pushing pixels. A data-race IS a kind of race condition.
My point is "races" happen all over. In concurrent code, databases, http and pretty much anywhere where you have some kind of timing, not scoped to a unit.
A race condition is an application invariant violation under concurrency, so it has no application-independent definition. A data race is unsynchronized access by two concurrent threads to the same memory location where at least one access is a write. Ergo, the definition of a data race has nothing to do with application logic.
I think this should make the distinction between data races and race conditions pretty clear.
Meh.. sure a DR is not the same as an RC, but i would class it as a subset of the same thing. You you cant have an RC, you cant have DR, but the other way around.
In the end its the same problem, dressed up differently.
A data race is by definition a class of an race condition. This is basic compsci literature, and there is no other way to put it, as even a non programmer can see the similarity.
Not sure why you would be that nitpicky for something so trivial?
I find this distinction extremely useful in practice because it explains why a static analyzer like Rust's type checker can prevent all data races but can do nothing about race conditions. (Similarly, a dynamic analyzer like ThreadSanitizer can detect data races but not race conditions, because it knows nothing about application logic.)
Go’s issue isn’t data race, it is tearing and corruption. Pretending it is on the same class as what is considered data race is again, basic software engineering.
Java arrays are thin pointers to Array objects, which contain the length and data in the same place (on the far side of the pointer). Since thin pointers cannot tear and Array objects cannot be resized, Arrays themselves are always memory-safe in safe code.
Go slices are fat pointers to undecorated memory. The slice itself is a 3-tuple of pointer, length, and capacity. If you append to a slice that's already at capacity, the Go runtime will allocate new memory for you and return a new 3-tuple. If you assign that result to a variable that's also being accessed by another goroutine, the latter can observe the slice in an inconsistent state. It can, for example, see the old pointer but with the new length, allowing out-of-bounds access. None of this requires unsafe code.
The same issue applies to string and interface variables, which are also fat pointers.
Shared Go slices are a bad mix in concurrent code. This is a given. But its also not a fair comparison, you should instead compare java arrays to go arrays, not slices.
This goes for slices, strings and maps. Those a usually wrapped in a mutex, or used with sync primitives like sync.Map.
The exact equivalences between the two languages are not the point, and anyway, Go arrays are fixed-size and have no Java equivalent.
The point is that Java does not have this problem in the language or the standard library. Of course, you should not write racy Go code; the language provides ample ways to avoid the race, such as channels; and the race detector will generally find such racy code, provided you turn it on. However, the issue is that this race leads to memory-safety violations; it can occur especially in code written by novice Go programmers, and it's well acknowledged by the language authors [1].
> Those a usually wrapped in a mutex, or used with sync primitives like sync.Map.
The same can be said of C or C++ constructs (and many "anti-Rust" people have historically said that) -- the point is that their use is not enforced by the language and so bugs can lead to panics.
I write a fair amount of Go and Rust so I really don't think either language's flaws are fatal, but it comes off as weirdly defensive to redefine memory and data safety to be "well if you use it properly it's safe". It's totally fine to say this is a problem the Go language did not find important enough to require compile time enforcement and so solving it is done by convention and testing with the race detector (which a similar answer C and C++ give to this problem).
From what I understand a data race on a simple built in feature like an interface pointer can result in a bad address / type pair, which can cause memory safety issues on any future access. I don't think you can get the JVM itself confused about what type a pointer points to.
There is no memory safety without freedom from data races. One is a prerequisite of the other. This is why languages like C# throw exceptions on unsynchronized concurrent access to some container types, and treat all property accesses as atomic.
> I have never seen real Go code (i.e. not code written purposefully to be exploitable) that was exploitable due to a data race.
And from tptacek in that same discussion [2]:
> The fact is that Go doesn't admit memory corruption vulnerabilities, and the way you know that is the fact that there are practically zero exploits for memory corruption vulnerabilities targeting pure Go programs, despite the popularity of the language.
I am, but you’d be surprised. All of the single-threaded languages are fine, for example. Very few languages are actually low-level enough to allow data races. C# and Java go to great lengths to avoid it.
Race conditions in general are another matter, and aren’t generally considered a requirement (though you can certainly create nasty bugs).
The claim is not there is no data races in Java programs. The claim is that Java programs are memory safe, because the underlying virtual machine memory model is free of data races.
Go does not have that.
(Of course also Java may suffer from memory safety issues on system boundaries to unsafe code and due to JVM bugs.)
I suppose that if you create a map in one thread, and then access it from another thread, then that might cause segmentation faults? Because map is a type that is implemented in C.
Rails, or even more so php have VERY little to bring to the table in 2026 going forward. Rails (ruby) is still a saner language than PHP, but as slow as php is. (granted ruby is not idiotic like PHP and runs rather than start/die).
If you go the LLM route something like Go is probably the goto default for MOST networking/web-first apps. You get static types, and a fast compile cycle (rust is still very slow here), and IF you want more from the language you can use something like Lisette (https://lisette.run/).
Bottom line is dynamic languages are obsolete. There is really no benefits from using them outside very small throw away scripts.
Well that's not something you say in a Rails conference, best language or framework for a project has been debated before I was born and will continue to be
I would have been more interested if he'd spoken about improvements actually in the Ruby world.
There fast JITS like YJIT, ZJIT, JRuby and TruffleRuby.
We also have static typing with RBS and an AOT compiler in Spinel and we have embeddable Crystal.
The speed of TruflleRuby or Spinal with RBS isn't that far behind Go.
And here's a Ruby advantage for you, Ruby even with static typing needs fewer tokens from your context window to represent the same solution as verbose Go.
DHH's own pitch for HotWire was that it allowed a native like experience without having to bow to Apple app store review process. Where's that gone?
There's lots of positive things that DHH could have spoken of but didn't.
No... no its not. PHP is bound by IO in 99,9% of cases. This means im pretty much fucked the moment i need to do something even a little more complex. Say one request need 5-10 separate sql queries, and some http call and possibly some task like sending a mail. PHP need to run these all sync. I have to hack around and use a shit-tonne of deps like message queues and all sorts of plugins to get something like this working performantly.
Before you go on that apologist route, no, im not installing any random shit just to do simple stuff like this..
Citation needed? I love hating PHP, but of the reasons I would chose something other than PHP, speed and resource consumption is pretty far down the list?
PHP is sync. This means every IO operation i do runs sync. This is why PHP will always be the slowest ones out there. Open a file, SQL queries, sending emails etc. Its all sync. Its all slow.
PS. I fully aware of hacks around this like reactphp and the other related async things, but those are all just heavy dependencies and for most sane devs non starters.
I must admit I haven't run the numbers, but if this can be trusted, sync PHP isn't far off from golang - while async does rather well?
I probably would only reach for PHP if I needed to run on shared hosting (or rather, my customers did) - in which case few other technologies would compete, obviously.
PS: golang is much faster at cpu - in this case one might argue a fairer comparison would use a compiled extension on the php side IMNHO - as that seems a likely path if a real project was cpu bound on a few small functions.
Why would I bother with anything but Laravel for small CRUD apps? Not having to think about concurrency is neat, having tons of abstractions built by people with 50x my experience is neat, just being able to get going is neat.
Building the things I've built using Laravel with Golang would probably take 10x the development time as I have to handcraft everything Laravel already natively provides. Or I have to trust 100 packages from 100 different random devs to simulate the Laravel experience in Golang.
With LLMs the language DOES NOT MATTER. The framework DOES NOT MATTER. This is the thing we are talking about here. Laravel is 100% useless for a LLM first project. I can pretty much do anything in vanilla Go i can in Laravel and be 100x more performant, 100x more typesafe, and produce 100x more maintainable systems.
This is why dynamic languages, and even more so BAD ones like PHP are just useless going into 2027 and the future. Its simple, the language gives you what it gives in perf, builtin RUNTIME features, and COMPILETIME features.
From that you pick the best for whatever you are building, be it Go, Rust, Ocaml etc. The language does not matter.
Go has 90% of stuff builtin, you rarely need any dependencies. Look at Laravel ITS A HUGE CODEBASE and a high risk for any real software project. I would stay FAR away from it.
What I do not understand with the "languages do not matter"/"frameworks do not matter" is ultimately the following:
What a good language or a good library (and to a lesser degree also a good framework) does is to pre-compress ideas into well understandable and composable chunks.
Examples:
`printf("foo %d, %3.2f %s", ...)` abstracts/compresses a general strategy of shuffling bytes into the correct ascii/utf-8... format.
An LLM could also write the raw assembly or bytecode for doing the same thing, but for one it would take much more tokens and to apply this pre-invented concept, and second without the concept already invented there would be no "information pattern" in existence that the LLM could have learned or refer to.
`list.map(...).filter(...)...` are patterns that (when applied strictly in a functional sense) go hand in hand with laws like `map` not affecting the number of elements, and filter producing no new elements etc...
These are also patterns that are already invented and depending on the language these restrictions are checked. Just reading `map` somewhere can tell you (and the LLM) a lot, and writing `map` instead of while, for or jmp will capture and express much more information. LLMs would not have been able to learn these concepts if they did not already exist. And even if such a general pattern would be discovered by an LLM somewhere inside its learnt parameters, it would not haven given this pattern a name that it could/would tell you. And if you do not know the name for such a concept how have a much harder time prompting the LLM.
Expressing computations in a well understood algebra allows for symbolic manipulation and simplification. like `5 + 3 == 3 * 5 == (1+1+1) * 5 == (5+5+5)...`. But algebraic manipulation requires a symbolic language with precise rules to describe what manipulation is allowed. In AI-speak you could say the language itself is a harness or a sandbox to guide and restrict whats possible. Doing advanced math proofs is only possible for LLMs because languages like LEAN provide a strict guideline to build upon.
In short, two extremes: If LEAN is so great at proofing correctness and LLMs are so good at LEAN, why is not from today on everything (windows, linux, basecamp, hey, gcc, rustc, blender...) translated into LEAN? Why bother with rust at all? On the other hand if languages do not matter anyway and LLMs are able to recognize all the pattern on their own, why not let the LLM output and iterate on the binary bytecode to generate a self contained binary directly?
LLMs would need way more tokens using langs/frameworks that dont have native features already built in? Even with LLMs I would take 10x the amount of time/tokens until I have something I could've just done with Laravel in the first place.
A more concrete example: Laravel has a built in rate limiter, with Go I'd either have to tell Claude to install some rate limiter package from some random ass dev or implement its own which would consume tokens/time...
Also your argument about PHP/Laravel being risky is pretty funny as everything is risky and most of the internet runs on PHP...
Nah. They are not, everyone is losing money, and just staying alive from gov subsidies. A claude PRO license is 20 usd/month, and for it to be profitable it should be somewhere around 200-300/month.
I think the Pro and other subs allow them to save big on ads (Claude Code use is required and it pushes their ads) and allow easy access to free data (CC occasionally solicits feedback and session sharing, which I'm pretty sure some users oblige). Also CC does massive prompt caching tailored to work in lockstep with their platform. With all that and who knows what else, I'd say it balances over time.
Imagine you wanted to make a native desktop app that runs on Windows (going back to Windows 95), and OSX, and Linux, and have it use the end users choice of native components, QT, or GTK. It also has to load fast, be accessible, and work on desktop, laptop, and phones. Also, you're only allowed to ship a single binary but you can load in assets based on the device when it runs.
The app could be anything from a single page that renders one image up to a complete 3D game. Users want 60FPS regardless of what it is.
I reckon you'd end up with a relatively complicated build pipeline.
I think you'd just end up with WxWidgets. Because it can do all of that.
Most of the jank of the modern platform doesn't come from JavaScript - it comes frame dependency hell, framework layered over framework, and over abstraction. It is a _cultural_ problem, rather than a technical one.
Thats not a true comparison, MAYBE that was sort of a thing back in the IE6 era. Today the web is capable of "a good enough" UX for most things. But how we do interactive apps on the web today is just madness. Most sites dont need anything close to React, and those who do could have just used something more simple without the madness what is the react ecosystem / bundlers / packages etc.
The best non-web analogy I can think of is when someone builds a 2D platformer in Unreal Engine. The complexity of the tooling is necessary because someone else is making Witcher 4 in it. The fact the 2D platformer is using a vastly more complicated tool than necessary is on the dev, not the tool.
It's not React's fault that some devs don't know how to make a form in HTML. There is an argument that React doesn't spend much time telling people they might not need it, but that's not really their responsibility, plus there are some things (reactivity to other things on the page) that are common enough that seeing the boundary where you do or don't need it is actually quite hard.
in defence of using ue5 for a 2d platformer, you still get a ton of features to help you build out the platformer, cross platform support, and you can reuse your knowledge across projects.
it's kind of the same for react. yes you could build one thing in vanilla js, another thing with htmx, and then a third in react. or just build all three in react and be done with it.
modern web dev is actually pretty simple now, there is still a stigma around webdev from the olden days but spinning up vite + react is trivial, doesn't pull a ton of dependencies, and makes it easy to build anything you want. yes you can still overcomplicate it massively but that's on the dev at that point.
Its 2026. You thinking you know more about other people's requirements in an absolutely enormous field is just plain naive and its embarrassing reading this stuff on HN.
Not sure what your point is? Are you saying that this mountain of complexity is somehow justified for the 99% of stuff out there? Complex stuff can and should be as simple as possible, and that something a good software developer strive to do.
But now we have abstractions upon abstraction, slow ands heavy solutions for almost every thing.
Software is slower than ever, not because of hardware, but because of the endless bloat and abstraction every framework brings.
> Are you saying that this mountain of complexity is somehow justified for the 99% of stuff out there?
No, I'm saying that I, as a single person, couldn't have any idea what the other 99% is doing and what their needs are. This field is ENORMOUS. There are hundreds of thousands of different types of problems being worked on. I don't know what complexity or requirements they're face and neither do you.
I've got 15 years and 6 jobs and I've still probably seen < 1% of the actual development work being done. And thinking that I can extrapolate form that 1% the other 99% is insane to me.
Improving speed is now overengineering apparently, but the same people would complain about how horrible web dev is if it weren't improved. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It's layers upon layers of indirection and then massive layers of optimization on top of it.
What should happen is that we take the lessons that we learned from this current iteration of the web and desktop and turn it into a new generation while cutting out the crap we don't need.
But bad performances stems from non compiler optimized React to begin with, its execution model when handwritten. Other frameworks don't necessarily take more effort to use and have better performances from the get go.
A lot of them do have compilers too, like a couple of the most commonly cited React alternatives, Svelte and Solid, so I'm not sure why React specifically is singled out.
*React. Nobody is forced to use React to write web UI though. Actually, in theory, AI helps getting rid of all these web frameworks, they are tools for made developers, LLM don't need React to code a web UI, they can use Vanilla DOM or faster frameworks, like SolidJS.
it's not really. you have javascript, you have a library like react which has a code transformer written in rust, you have vite which orchestrates the build process, and...?
if anything the migration of all these tools to rust makes things way less complicated. you have a binary for compiling your react code (totally optional btw, it's a performance optimisation), a cli for building your app (vite, built on a rust binary basically), and react itself which is virtually dependency free. where is the over engineering here?
Nah. 99% of meetings are fluff. Something that could have been just an short email. Meetings are for people who do not get anything done. for people who like to waste other peoples time. The actual good meetings are the ones that have a VERY clear context, and goes down to details that EVERYONE in the meetings know by heart. These are rare, maybe one a year.
RTO steals one work day from me per week, at a minimum. When i work from home i can start 6am (or whenever i want to), and if im in a flow state, i can push to 5pm easily. I get SOOOO much done. Other days i can lax, have a few teams meetings and chill on the couch and quit work early.
When i go to the office it takes 2 hours from each day only for commute, add meetings, lunch breaks, and the office bullshit chitchat and non-stop blabber that distracts you. People on the phone, or just "hanging" out next to you.
Bottom line is when i have to work from the office i get 5% done of what i do from home. I get angry, and unmotivated. I usually also leave early.
Sir, you are controlling the buttons you push. I.e. it's up to you who you follow and what exactly you read on Twitter - just like any other social network.
There are news that are circulating much faster on Twitter than anywhere else (for example about war in Ukraine). There are people and companies that post only on Twitter and nowhere else (especially in tech).
> it's up to you who you follow and what exactly you read on Twitter
The Twitter experience is a highly algorithmic feed where tweets from the people you follow are not guaranteed to be in chronological order, or even shown to you at all. The default experience also mixes it other tweets "you might be interested in", that is, things they want you to see.
There's also the fact people could freely see tweets and follow discussion threads, that's now locked behind an account requirement.
A half of Twitter's point for me was the trending section, that you don't have any control on now (you used to be able to disable the personalization of that section but since X you cannot, if you want the actual trends you need to go in a subsection). The whole section is full personalized ragebaits (because at some point I used to reply to those), now it just makes the experience of trends quite unbearable and I can't change that.
Even if you tried to ignore ragebait the X algorithm is going to prioritize them because it is highly tuned to promote high engagement content. Any given feed is going to have white supremacy, flat Earth, climate change denial, immigrant hate, vaccine harms, and of course Elon shilling for his AI products.
I get news from Ukraine just in a good enough pace from various bloggers etc on youtube. Then there is telegram, thats arguably even a better source for the "this just happened on the front lines" news (ofc without any sources, just like twitter).
Bottom line is you DONT need twitter if your only want is "i want rumours called news the minute something happens"
A number of decent news accounts cross post on Twitter. I wish they would pick a platform other than Telegram or Twitter but it is what it is.
A lot of non-Western accounts were recently demonetized so maybe they will move elsewhere. Although the best ones don’t seem to be doing it for money, they usually have some personal grudge.
Sir, you are voluntarily using a website owned by an unstable Nazi, who purchased it because his feelings were hurt and people were making fun of him there. Now his brain droppings make it into everyone’s feed by default, from what I understand.
> There are news that are circulating much faster on Twitter than anywhere else (for example about war in Ukraine).
I am certain that Twitter is not the only place where you can find these updates, if you really care for up-to-the-minute news. But I don’t.
> There are people and companies that post only on Twitter and nowhere else (especially in tech).
These people and companies are (knowingly or unknowingly) supporting a Nazi billionaire and they are not worth paying any attention to until they change their behavior.
Default Reddit mainpage is strictly what you subscribe to. And from a tech point of view, Reddit has old. CSS, it has tree style comments with sorting and collapsing, it has no dumb character limits, and on big screens it properly fills the screen with content instead of dumb emptiness or fluff or just infogarbage (do people remember that hashtags are literally just a useless character dumps, born out of the limitations of the SMS tech).
So no, Reddit is not worse than Xitter both on social and tech merit.
Option A: You occasionally encounter power tripping mods on a site where you are free to create your own community and become the mod yourself.
Option B: a power tripping drug-addled Nazi billionaire owns the entire site and can change the site behavior for every user on a whim, with no recourse.
An echo chamber isn’t inherently bad, and moderation is required to maintain any semblance of a well functioning online community.
Reddit can be good if you stay in your niche and off the default subs. Twitter is good if you similarly curate your experience and don’t let it push you into garbage.
> Twitter is good if you similarly curate your experience and don’t let it push you into garbage.
I want to follow the guy who tracked Elon's jet and documented its fuel usage and CO2 emissions. Oops, can't make that part of my "curated experience" on Twitter. So much for free speech absolutism.
The point is that when you're subject to the whims of an irrational asshole, you can't have any assurance that your curated experience will stay consistent. For this reason alone, Twitter is worse than Reddit.
Are you anti-drugs? Do you think drug users are bad people or using drugs is condemnable? I'm asking because anti-fascists are typically pro-drugs. So I'm confused.
I don't see any qualification on parent post, only saying Musk is bad because he's using drugs.
But you are right, so you agree that frequent drug users should not be offered jobs with responsibilities because for example they might drug and drive.
No, no one is a bad person only because they use drugs.
> or using drugs is condemnable
As a general statement, no.
But my answer is yes, your actions are condemnable, if you decide to let drugs affect your mental state in any way as you’re making important decisions that affect other people.
For example, if you’re making safety decisions for a vehicle that’s being manufactured. Or if you are making pretty much any decision at all for a company that you run which makes medical devices that are implanted in people's bodies. Or if you’re deciding to gut a government program that is responsible for feeding or medicating thousands of people (meaning that your decisions can directly lead to thousands of deaths).
Do you think an emotionally inept billionare Nazi with a drug problem should have been in charge of deciding whether poor people from other countries (who are often non-white) continue to receive life-saving aid? Do you think if that person makes the decision to cut that aid, killing those people, it's appropriate for him to brag about it publicly using the term "wood chipper" as a metaphor?
Everybody who's not totally limited in their mindsets. Twitter/X is uncensored. I think open minds who are hungry for the raw, real truth prefer such platform, rather than one that's regulated by one political party of one particular country.
If X is so open, why do I have to register an account to see practically anything? Why are they banning mirrors? If an open source project banned mirroring, there'd be an outrage.
Why did Elon ban PaulG and many for posting a link to Mastodon?
Why did so many get suspended for sharing the location of Elon's private jet?
It doesn't become more true if you claim that multiple times around here. X under Musk is well documented to censor widely. It's just that the direction of censorship has shifted under him, so your particular bubble might get more left alone now.
> hungry for the raw, real truth
Haha sure. Why not go to the original where Tweets are actually literally called Truths?
There’s likely some information on there that some people must want to share if services like Xcancel and Nitter exist and allow you to share it without being on X itself.
If someone thinks Twitter is an echo chamber to the extent they can’t fathom how people tolerate it (and it isn’t just an appeal for easy upvotes), but they happily post on HN, they’ll be able to clear up their initial confusion with a bit of self reflection.
General sentiment might be this, but every social network (even Instagram and Facebook) can be good and productive if you change how you use them.
If you follow specific profiles/channels/pages and just read the feeds from them as if they were news, you are removing the toxic part (mostly infinite scrolling) and getting a resourceful feature.
If for some reason someone you need to follow is on X (twitter) only, you have to choose between losing a source or compromise with the platform.
I personally belong to the former group (and possibly you do, too), leaving behind sources, but not everyone likes it that way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The platform compromise is a new thing. One of the reasons people used Twitter was its open nature, enabling its use as a bulletin board where anyone could post a message and being sure that the message link was free for anyone to see. This isn't the case anymore, as X forces people to make accounts to see messages.
Allowing more voices on the platform might've made it more toxic (who knows - you're not the judge of toxic) but at least we have left- and right-wing toxicity, instead of only left-wing. And we get a lot of additional non-toxic voices, which was the actual point.
> Allowing more voices on the platform might've made it more toxic (who knows - you're not the judge of toxic)
Allowing the nazi voices definitely did. And while that dude isn't the judge of what is toxic, a majority of people are.
I don't know what you personally want to call it when someone posts condolences about a tragedy or massacre killing many people in their home country, and the nazis pop up to reply "you're next, [racial slur omitted]". Pretty sure most people would call that toxic, so it's toxic, even if a small minority of people disagree.
Abdul Ballout drove a car into CSD-goers in Berlin on 25.7. Were affected parties able to discuss better on Twitter or Bluesky? As philipallstar wrote, in a chamber of only left-wing voices, the discussion is not better.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't use BlueSky, are there often people there threatening racially-based killings, with the reporters getting banned? That is the worst for sure.
Seems like a tangent either way: letting violent right-wing nazis do violent right-wing nazi things on twitter has definitely made it worse and more toxic than not letting violent right-wing nazis do violent right-wing nazi things on twitter.
Indeed, death threats are worse than whatever censorship one claims happened on twitter pre-elmu, because free speech is predicated upon appropriately responding to death threats. Otherwise, speech can be censored with violence, and on twitter, it is now (along with elmu and friends censoring accounts they don't like by banning them).
We were discussing right-wing death threats on X, and you tried to distract by bringing up something else, somewhere else.
You are free to continue condoning nazi death threats towards minorities on twitter since elmu started allowing it, but it has nonetheless made twitter worse and more toxic. Whatever you personally think about whatever drama on whatever other social network is irrelevant to that.
I am a minority. My point is relevant. You've misrepresented Twitter and people who use it. I don't use Twitter. It's not a crime to want to discuss things openly.
You and I being minorities is not relevant to whether the elmu-condoned nazi death threats on twitter have made it more or less toxic than it was before.
What some other random social media site did or does is not relevant to whether the elmu-condoned nazi death threats on twitter have made it more or less toxic than it was before.
Do you personally believe that nazi death threats are toxic? You can be honest.
It's ok to think it differently and have different opinions.
You just happen to value censorship more than free speech.
This is ok, don't feel sorry, but try also to understand that other people might value different things.
If you think a post is so bad to be illegal you have means to deal with that outside the platform.
Just remember that on internet you will find everyone, from 12 years old kids, to older people coming from different cultures, or more simply, trolls...
You have your opinions, but that doesn't mean they are objectively correct.
Also, if you are offended, doesn't mean you are right.
I've used it extensively in English due to learning the language through a lot of older books - but I've never bothered to actually pull out the emdash, I would hope people can see that I'm not trying to subtract one sentence from the other.
Where do you think the LLMs got the emdash from? When I worked as a magazine editor we took good care to discern ndash and emdash in printing. In Germany it is a Bindestrich (which links words, hence "bind") and Gedankenstrich (this is where you have a pause in thinking and continue the sentence afterwards).
Like i said, the dash IS a thing, and only in practice used by "experienced writers", common folk NEVER use it. LLMs stole all the books, so obviously the AI spits out dashed like there is no tomorrow.
You cant argue about this, just looking at github, i never saw dashes used pre AI. Today you see a dashes in code comments, PRs, issues etc EVERY time. Its all AI generated.
reply