This article gives me vibes that someone wrote a few lines outlining the situation and asked the AI to write the article itself. Interestingly though, I think most people would just rather read the outline, less time wasted and less llm.

A part that screams AI would be:

This wasn’t subtle venue security—your biometric data became part of the artistic statement, whether you consented or not.

“This isn’t this–it’s that” is an extremely common AI sentence structure, further exposed by the fact that the part before the em-dash doesn’t even make sense to begin with. No one was asking themselves whether it was part of subtle venue security.

As a sidenote, sometimes I read sentences like this and I wonder “could this ever even have been written by a human?” I think that there’s a very low chance that this article didn’t have at least some amount of AI involved, but I know that somewhere out there there must be some people who actually write like this. And that’s kind of sad.

tbh I don’t even know why I even wrote this, the entire article appears to be one big example of generic AI writing

I probably have forgotten more programming languages than you can list, and if there are constants in programming, then a) while compilers get better at catching bugs, they never got over the basics, and b) a good programmer will alyways be better at preventing and catching bugs than a compiler.

I agree with this

Once you have aquired a good mindset about disciplined programming, those buglets a compiler (or even code review systems) can find usually don’t happen.

I also agree with this.

I would like to put a lot of emphasis in the usually. It doesn’t mean that they don’t happen, no human being makes no mistakes. Rust simply gives people a little more peace of mind knowing that unless they use unsafe they’re probably fine in terms of memory issues.

As a side note, there was this once I was making an ecs engine in rust, and kept fighting the compiler on this issue. Specifically, the game engine bevy uses Query in the World to retrieve information about the game state, and I wanted to do the same. For instance, in the following function (or something similar, I honestly don’t remember all that well):

fn getplayer(player: Query<Player>) {}

Would get player from the world and assign it to player (more or less). However rust was adamant in not letting me do this. After some thinking I finally realized why

fn getplayer(player: Query<Player>, player_too: Query<Player>) {}

Would give two mutable references to the same Player in the same function, which can be very easily mishandled, and thus is not allowed in rust.

I don’t know about the MISRA standard, but I don’t think that using it would have changed the way I coded my inherently flawed approach. This is a small example, one that didn’t even matter that much in the grand scheme of things and could be even hard to understand why it’s bad without knowing rust, but it is the one that came to mind. I think that if I had more experience I would he able to give you one that actually had security implications.

I’m no seasoned programmer, however

It’s the bugs that even evade a seasoned programmer that poses the problems, and there, Rust won’t help either

What do you mean these are not the ones that rust tries to fix? Even huge projects like the linux kernel get memory bugs. I don’t know anything about ADA and nor do I want to “evangelize rust” but what you’re saying sounds boggers.

Obviously rust cannot prevent all bugs or even most of them. It can only prevent a small subset of bugs, but saying that that “small subset of bugs” wouldn’t happen to seasoned programmers is just wrong, especially when you have tons of programmers working on the same big project.

I don’t mean to say that rust is always the correct choice, but that you’re waving off its greatest offering as bicycle training wheels (i.e. something no seasoned programmer would need)

Why the fuck do I need to verify whether I’m an adult

deleted by creator

In my comment I said:

I could understand this comment in the context of the app

And the whole reason why I commented was because I’d misunderstood your comment. I’d thought it was separate from the post itself, since you hadn’t made it clear that the purpose of your comment was to say something like: “So despite the consequences it might have to the men featured in the app, it should still exist due to the benefit that it would bring to women”. Without that, to me, it really just looked like you’d read the stories from the men and thought “women have it worse”.

Since I’m now inside the discussion, I’m gonna give you my two cents.

I think that most people here weren’t really mad at the app due to its purpose. They were mad because it’s far from a perfect solution. Regardless of how much protection the app has, at these issues will exist:

• Leaks can happen
• Women can lie
• Men can infiltrate the app

Not to mention that, in this case, the creator was a man and the information protection was laughably bad.

In the future, apps like this one might become a must for women’s self-protection, but that doesn’t mean that the app’s issues will just cease existing. Pointing them out along with personal experiences to back them up, and then weighing in the pros and cons is always going to be very important.

Might’ve made myself a bit unclear, here’s a tl;dr

I thought you’d meant

This bad situation happened to me

Women have it worse

But what I’ve realized what you’d meant is

This bad situation happened to me

But that doesn’t mean that the app shouldn’t exist

And to finish, sorry that that happened to you. I hope you and the people you talked about stay safe.

I don’t want you to take me badly, but to me this comment sounded really demeaning. Obviously women have it way worse than men, but you see a comment with a men venting about their personal experiences and the first thing that comes to mind is “women have it worse”?

I could understand this comment in the context of the app, and how people are making fun of it when its purpose is to try to solve such a common and awful problem in dating–but in the context of the comments of men venting here, it really just sounds like you’re invalidating their experiences just because they’re not women.

Description says the screenshot is at least 12 years old, though asking google at the time would have probably at least yielded the correct spelling of repository, so I wouldn’t go as far as to dismiss your conclusion