> "Usage of Odin in a world-class product" is enough to count as notable
I'm not even sure that would count, really. A world-class product that gets a lot of coverage is notable, for sure, but that wouldn't be enough to make some implementation detail of that product notable unless the sources really leaned on it.
Makes sense. The Brainfuck article has a bunch of citations to published journals and books, so it's notable -- people are talking about it in ways that Wikipedia recognizes. That's what "notability" means -- "are unrelated trustworthy people talking about it?"
The references aren't good. I don't have any pre-existing opinion of Odin, since I had never heard of it before I saw this HN post, and those references don't convince me that it matters to anyone.
I'm fairly inclusionist, so I'd personally think it's worth keeping the article if they could point to Odin being used by any notable project, or by a bunch of small projects. But the only user it claims for the language is a company I'd never heard of that doesn't have a wikipedia article.
Is it "defrauding" if someone's just following the rules, though? And, at that, is it worth building your citizenship rules around something incredibly rare? (Estimates seem to think it's something like 15k babies a year.)
There's this quote from the 2010 interview with Waterson:
> If I had rolled along with the strip's popularity and repeated myself for another five, ten, or twenty years, the people now "grieving" for Calvin and Hobbes would be wishing me dead and cursing newspapers for running tedious, ancient strips like mine instead of acquiring fresher, livelier talent. And I'd be agreeing with them.
Is the person best known for exploiting security vulnerabilities to get into places you'd rather they didn't, and then getting lost and taking forever to get places the ideal namesake for your AI workspace project?
Even new Kindles don't support EPUB, per-se. The Send-to-Kindle service started supporting EPUB, and converts them to AZW3 or KFX for actual delivery to your Kindle.
But you cannot just USB an EPUB onto your Kindle without any conversion process. (Calibre does make it very simple, though.)
I'm not sure you appreciate why PHP was successful. You might be completely right about all this, but the LAMP-stack "just upload this file to shared hosting" workflow is what made apps like WordPress win out, and the barrier remains significantly higher to do the equivalent with Rust.
It's a mismatch with our intuition about how much effort things take.
If there's humans involved, "I took this data and made a really fancy interactive chart" means that you put a lot more work into it, and you can probably somewhat assume that this means some more effort was also put into the accuracy of the data.
But with the LLM it's not really very much more work to get the fancy chart. So the thing that was a signifier of effort is now misleading us into trusting data that got no extra effort.
(Humans have been exploiting this tendency to trust fancy graphics forever, of course.)
It's a mediawiki feature: there's a set of pages that get treated as JS/CSS and shown for either all users or specifically you. You do need to be an admin to edit the ones that get shown to all users.
As an aside, it does seem like a bit of a bad sign for a feature that you know up-front that it'll be so polarizing that you need to have an always-visible top-level "hide this forever!" button.
I dunno, I think that multiple people doing a workout together in the same at-home room is a bit of an edge case for this app. I have a not-tiny house, and I don't have a space where I could do that without having to move heavy furniture around first. People who live in apartments are really out of luck.
Though, just to be clear, the per-user ones are also public. They're just a convention where if you make a subpage of your user page and call it "Sandbox", nobody is going to complain about the encyclopedic value of your edits.
I work at Wikimedia, but this is very much not me making official statements.
http://davidlynch.org/