Fuck off with your emdashes you dirty clanker
Honestly it’s a pretty well written and explained article. I hesitate to say that it’s entirely human generated, but I certainly would try and judge it for its content before just writing it off as slop.
Personally I think the author overstates the practicality of using counters for serialization, as the ordering of source code is also a very cosmetic thing and tweaking scenes ruins the save format. There’s no possibility for backward compatibility either in such cases.
Honestly it’s a pretty well written
It was not written
I certainly would try and judge it for its content
I’m not falling for this engagement bait, and I’m certainly not providing free fact checking for AI generated crap
Personally I think the author overstates…
There is no author, and there are no statements; this is junk text auto generated by someone who doesn’t understand the subject matter trying to bait people to drive SEO traffic so they can make money from ads and/or scams
The author has been a CPPCon presenter, worked at Bloomberg, and has a GitHub history going back at least to 2022 where they were contributing to LLVM. This isn’t coming from their website but from the actual websites.
Based on their history and experience that’s public on their profiles from an era pre ChatGPT, I think you are overreacting and making a fool of yourself.
It’s pretty scary how we live in an era where semi competent writing gets assumed to be AI and you refuse to fact check yourself before shitting on them as being not real.
Refuting the genetic fallacy with appeal to authority is equally fallacious.
And there are plenty of inept and unintelligent people in the C++ scene anyway. Ironically, someone active (or used to be) in committees even thought ChatGPT surpassed human intelligence years ago, and started to “contribute” on that basis (and more ironically, that wasn’t the semi-scandal that caught him out).
The genetic fallacy is fallacious on its own. Always. There is no further proof needed to point to it being contextually applicable. And in your case, that attempted proof was unhelpful and in itself fallacious.
I’m not appealing to authority. I’m pointing out that they’re not a bot. As I said in my first post, I wouldn’t claim it’s entirely human generated, I have no idea one way or another. What I said to start with and now is that it’s worth addressing the Blogpost on its merits not on its use of emdashes.
It’s crazy to me that you think I’m even saying there smart/clever/whatever and could do no wrong. The only thing I’m appealing to is the evidence that they exist.
